Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 08-28 CCP Regular Session i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Brooklyn Center August 28, 1978 7;00 p.m. 1. Call - to Order 2. Roll. Call 3 Invocation 4. Approval of Minutes - August 14, 1978 5. Open Forum 6. Final Plat Approvals; a. Final plat approval for Irving Estates Subdivision submitted by David Brandvold . -This is for property north of 69Th Avenue North and westerly of Irving Avenue North. The City Council approved - the preliminary plat on May 22, 19 78 under Application No. 78025. b. Final plat approval for Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Registered Land Survey. -This plat is for property lying at the southeast quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The City Council approved - the preliminary plat on May 8 , � 19 78 under Application No. 78021. 7. Authorize Subdivision Bond Reduction for Linder's First Addition. -It is recommended that - the financial performance guarantee for Linder's First Addition be reduced from $8,100 to $7,250 on the basis that corresponding obligation s. have been satisfied. it is previously been reduced from $9,800 to $8,100 on April 24, 1978. 8. Resolutions; a. Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments on September 25, 1978. -This is recommended for the purpose of establishing a public hearing on proposed special assessments for September 25, 1978. b. Placing on File and Opening Proposed Assessments for Public Inspection. -This is recommended for 'the purposes of officially opening - the proposed special assessments for public inspection. c. Accepting Quotation for Curb and Gutter Contract 1978 -N. Provides for Halverson Construction Company - to do - the curb and gutter work on James Circle on a quotation basis. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 28, 1978 d. Accepting Work for Improvement Projects for Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, and /or Water Main. (7) -The work has been satisfactorily completed by Walhunt Construction Company. 1978 -18 (Irving Lane from Irving Avenue westerly); 1978 -19 (Irving Avenue North from 70th to Irving Lane); 1978 -25 (James Circle from Freeway Boulevard 'to 'the south); 1978 -26 (James Circle and Freeway Boulevard); 1978 -21 (Aldrich Avenue from 68th Avenue northerly approximately 340 feet); 1978 -22 (Aldrich Avenue from 68th Avenue northerly approximately 340 feet); 1978 -23 (Aldrich Avenue North from 68th Avenue northerly approximately 169 feet) . e. Supporting the City of Richfield in a Lawsuit - Support for - the City of Richfield in a lawsuit contesting the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of - the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act. f. Amending - the 1978 Budget -to Include Additional Ceramic Tiling of the Pool at - the Brooklyn Center Community Center. g. Authorizing - the Issuance of Temporary Improvement Notes -There is a need for interim financing prior - to - the selling of bonds ` P to finance certain improvement project costs which are - to be assessed against benefited properties. The temporary improvement notes would be in - the amount of $80,000: 9. Planning Commission Items (8:00 p.m.): a. 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 gathered and studied by the Council. f b. Application No. 78048 submitted by the Meadow Corporation for special use, site and building plan approval for - the 4 development phase of The Ponds located at approximately 71st and Unity Avenue North. The development comprehends 66 condominium single family attached dwelling units . The Planning Commission. recommended approval at its August 10, 1978 meeting. C. Application No. 78049 submitted by - the Meadow Corporation which comprehends preliminary plat approval for The Ponds plat 3 consisting of Outlots C and I of The Ponds Addition located at approximately 71st and Unity Avenues North. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 10, 1978 meeting. d. Application No. 78050 submitted by the Meadow Corporation which comprehends preliminary plat approval for The Ponds plat 4 consisting of Outlot D of The Ponds Addition located at approximately 71st and Unity Avenues North. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 10, 1978 meeting. I • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 28, 1978 e. Application No. 78055 submitted by the Meadow Corporation which comprehends a preliminary plat approval for The Ponds plat 7 located in the vicinity of 73rd and Unity Avenues North. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 24, 1978 meeting. f. Application No. 78052 submitted by Delbert Holmin which comprehends a variance from Section 35 -400 - to permit construction 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 g. Application No. 78054 submitted by Lund Martin Company which com- prehends site and building plan approval for - the construction of a free- standing lithium storage building at Medtronic, Inc. 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Planning Commission recommended approval of - the application at its August 10, 1978 meeting. 10. Discussion Ttems: a. Housing Commission Seminar Budget for the Housing Awareness Seminar to be Held September 16, 1978. b. Community Development Block Grants Participation in urban county - through joint cooperative agreement with Hennepin County. 11. Licenses 12. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE SHARING PROPOSED USE HEARING OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AUGUST 14, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Administrative Hearing was called to order by City Manager Gerald G. Splinter at 1:45 p.m. ROLL CALL City Manager Gerald G. Splinter, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Brad Hoffman. - PUBLIC INPUT The City Manager asked that the record reflect that no individuals were present to make recommendations or proposals for the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds. It was also asked that the record reflect that no correspondence had been received relative to the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds. ADJOURNMENT The Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Administrative Hearing was adjourned at 1 :50 p.m. S 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 14, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7.05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Parks and Recreation Gene Hagel, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty, Brad Hoffman and Steve Korf€. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Backie OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist introduced the next item of business on the agenda, the Open Forum. He recognized Mr. Virgil Linn of 3112 49th Avenue North. Mr. Linn questioned the status of improvements at Howe Fertilizer as stipulated in an earlier Council meeting. Mr. Linn indicated certain problems had been dealt with minimally. Some of the garbage and debris in the back of Howe Fertilizer had been cleaned up but there was still some left. Howe Fertilizer was experiencing a slack time and, therefore, the lay off of employees has taken care of the former parking problem but Mr. Linn indicated he felt the problem would arise again at peak business times. Mr. Linn expressed concern over a fence that Howe Fertilizer had erected. After erection of the fence, Howe Fertilizer had moved trailers along the fence in the area of 49th Avenue. Mr. Linn asked whether or not a City ordinance did not require the area along the fence be left as a greenstrip rather than used for parking. He further expressed concerns about the vibration problem. Finally, Mr. Linn explained there were certain areas where Howe Fertilizer had dumped crravel. These areas had formerly been sodded and the City had requested that they be resodded. Mr. Linn indicated these areas had not been resoddeclo In conclusion, Mr. Linn stated he has not forgotten the earlier discussions and the suggestions for improvement at Howe Fertilizer and even though the summer was a slack time for Howe, Mr. Linn would continue to monitor the situation in hopes of reaching a situation which the neighborhood could tolerate. Mr. Linn indicated he considered a class action lawsuit if all other means failed. Mayor Nyquist commented that considerable attention had been directed to Howe by City staff. The City Manager further commented that Howe Fertilizer had signed a stipulation agreement with the Pollution Control Agency which set a schedule as to 8 -14 -78 -1 when the problems would be handled. The problems in question are the ammonia like smell, the fugitive dust problem and the particulate matter problem. If there is noncompliance with the stipulation agreement, there will be a fine levied against Howe Fertilizer. The City Manager further explained Howe Fertilizer had put up the fence to screen the fertilizer plant from the neighborhood as an interim step, Howe Fertilizer had followed the setback requirements in the erection of the fence. Finally, the City Manager indicated the City was monitoring the situation at Howe Fertilizer and also monitoring the compliance with the PCA stipulation agreement, The City Manager suggested a copy of the stipulation agreement could be sent to Mr. Linn for his reviewQ Mayor Nyquist next recognized Mrs, Earlene Scott, an employee of the Hennepin County Welfare Department located at 400 South 5th Street. Mayor Nyquist explained under the guidelines for Open Forum, speakers were generally not allowed to speak on a topic that was scheduled for the agenda of that particular Council: meeting but that he would allow Mrs. Scott to speak on the issue. Mrs. Scott explained that several assessments had been madam which show the northwest quadrant of the greater metropolitan area is in need of many social services. It is her feeling that CEAP is a visible organization and an accessible organization. It is difficult for many of the people who are now served by CEAP in Brooklyn Center to get downtown to get those same services. Records of the Hennepin County Welfare Department show 900 contacts with.Hennepin County made through LEAP, Mrs. Scott concluded CEAP provides a valuable service and it is her hope the City Council will support CEAP to such a degree that CEAP will be able to continue Mayor Nyquist next recognized Mr. Floyd Scott who is an information and referral and outreach worker, working from the CEAP building at 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Scott explained he had a written summary of his comments which he would submit to the City staff. He explained CEAP had played a valuable role in fulfilling the needs of this area. Some of the needs which CEAP deals with are transportation of the elderly and poor people and medical needs, among many others, Mr. Scott expressed concern over shrinking federal and state dollars and the fact that more of the burden for social service needs is falling on municipalities. CEAP has been able to fulfill many of those needs effectively and economically for the municipalities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, Councilmember Fignar asked how the proliferation of agencies that duplicate services ' could be eliminated if for example CEAP was able to more effectively provide a Particular service. Mr. Scott responded that the Hennepin County Planning and Evaluation Unit for cost effectiveness might be able to evaluate what organizations could most effectively provide a service and if there is in actuality a duplication, Mayor Nyquist next recognized Mr. Arnie Foslien, 7120 Riverdale Road. Mr. Foslien commented CEAP has made this community a good place to live. He urged the Council to take legal action as quickly as possible to again make LEAP possible. Mr. Foslien explained it was his opinion LEAP was the closest option people had in this day and age to be able to help their neighbors Mayor Nyquist inquired if anyone else wished to be recognized for the Open Forum; there being none, the Open Forum was closed. 8 -14 -78 - -2- Mayor Nyquist next recognized Margaret Grimes who had been crowned Senior Aquatennial Queen, Mayor Nyquist offered congratulations to Margaret Grimes on behalf of the City and presented roses to hero Councilmember Kuefler arrived at 7 :35 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 24, 1978 There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the July 24, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott, Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, DECLARATION OF HANDICAPPED SCOUT WEEK Mayor Nyquist asked the Council to consider declaring the week of August 13 through August 20 as Handicapped Scout W g g pp t eek o . During this week there will be a paper drive to earn money or handicapped Scouts There was a n b Council- Y Ap o motion y member Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to declare the week of August 13 . through August 20 Handicapped Scout Week, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council - members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against; none. The motion passed unanimously, FINAL PLAT A FOR REGISTERED LAND SURVEY (ROBERT GUSTAFSON) The final plat approval is for property lying on the east side of France Avenue North just southerly of 53rd Avenue North. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on June 19, 1978 under Application No. 78031, Motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the registered land survey as submitted by Robert Gustafson for the property lying on the east side of France Avenue North just southerly of 53rd Avenue North, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR IRVING ESTATES SUBDIVISION (DAVID BRANDVOLD) The final plat approval for property lying north of 69th Avenue North and westerly of Irving Avenue North was held over until the August 28, 1978 City Council meeting, RELEASE OR REDUCTION OF PERFORMANCE BONDS The City Manager explained site inspections had been made and on the basis of completed approved improvements, release or reduction of the performance agree- ments for the following projects is recommended: Burger King, 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard, to be released of an $8,000 bond'submitted by Antler Corporation; Vickers Station, 6830 Brooklyn Boulevard, to be released of a $ bond submitted by Elder - Jones, Inc.; Dayton's Home Store, 5701 Xerxes Avenue North, to be released of a $9,500 bond submitted by Dayton Hudson Corporation; Fun Services, 3701 50th Avenue North, to be reduced a $3,000 cash escrow submitted by Mr, William Bjerke to $1,000. Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to release performance bonds for Burger King, Vickers Station, and Dayton's Home Store, and to reduce performance bonds for Fun Services, in the amount recommended by the City 8 -14 -78 -3 Manager. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPOINTMENTS Mayor Nyquist recommended Rev. Robert Cilke, 6012 Washburn Avenue North, as a Commissioner on the Housing Commission. Rev. Cilke would replace Mr. Leo Beikler as an at -large Commissioner to the Housing Commission. Motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve the appointment of Rev. Robert Cilke as a Commissioner to the Housinq Commission. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recommended the appointment of Fred Albright, 5344 Irving Avenue North to the Conservation Commission. Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the appointment of Mr. Fred Albright as a Conservation Commissioner. Mr. Albright was in the audience to receive the appointment. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recommended the appointments of the election judges for the primary election on September 12 1978 as recommended in a list from the City Clerk to the Council. Motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the election judges for the primary election on September 12, 1978 as named on the list provided by the City Clerk to the City Council. That list of people will also serve for general. election judges if they are so available. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, The motion passed unanimously. AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE A CONSULTANT The City Manager introduced the next item of business on the agenda, the authori- zation to hire a consultant for inspection of water tower repainting for Contract No 1978 -G The City Manager recommended a motion be made by the City Council authorizing the City Manager to retain Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratory, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,500 to conduct certain inspections and tests of the repainting and modifications of elevated water towers comprehended under Contract No. 1978 -G. The City Engineer explained consultants had been used in the past for this type of inspection for quality control but previously the cost had been under $1,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to authorize the City Manager to retain Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratory, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,500 to conduct certain inspections and tests of the repainting and modifications of elevated water towers comprehended in Contract No. 1978 -G. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, 8 -14 -78 -4- Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF REMOVAL OF A HAZARDOUS BUILDING The City Manager introduced the next item of business, a resolution ordering the removal of a hazardous building located at 5426 Fremont Avenue North. The building was damaged by fire on March 26, 1978. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -158 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ORDERING THE RAZING AND REMOVAL OF THE HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND DEBRIS ON LOT 28, BLOCK 2, N AND E, PERKINS ADDITION, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA 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 ON PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AGREEMENT The City Manager introduced the next item of business, a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into a preliminary engineering agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The agreement provides for reimbursement to the City for engineering costs related to utility relocation necessitated on I -94 between T.H. 152 and T.H. 169.' RESOLUTION NO. 78 -159 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREE- MENT NO. 59193 REGARDING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF F.I. 94 BETWEEN Y.H. 694 AND THE WEST CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN 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. A second resolution pertaining to the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding preliminary engineering costs for relocation of utilities in conjunction with FI -94 southerly of T.H. 694 was recommended by the City Manager. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -160 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREE - MENT NO. 59266 REGARDING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH COSTS OF F.I. 94 SOUTHERLY OF T.H. 694 8 -14 -78 -5- 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. DISCUSSION ON TAX FORFEITED LAND The City Manager introduced the next item of business, designation of certain tax forfeited land in the City of Brooklyn Center to be used for public purposes. There are two resolutions concerning tax forfeited land in the City recommended for approval. First, it is recommended that Parcel 0210 of Plat 89103 (approximately 4.6 acres) dying westerly of Shingle Creek and southerly of the American Little League property and easterly of the properties abutting Vincent Avenue be obtained by the City and utilized as additional open space. Secondly, it is recommended that a portion of Classification List "654 -NC be approved for sale. It is not the intention of the City of Brooklyn Center to approve Plat 89103, Parcel 0210; Plat 89252, Parcel 4500; Plat 89766, Parcels 6000, 7500 and 9000 for sale. RESOLUTION NO, 78 -161 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN TAX FORFEITED LAND IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO BE USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES 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 -162 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PORTION OF CLASSIFICATION LIST "654 --NC" 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 PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER USER INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH CHARGE The City Manager introduced the next item of business, a public hearing on the proposed sanitary sewer user industrial strength charge. Currently there are no industries within the City of Brooklyn Center that would be required to pay the additional user strength charge. However, it is necessary for the City to establish the strength charge in the event a new industry falling within the strength charge formula were to come into the community. The specific formula , for determination of the user strength charge has been formulated by the Minnesota Waste Control Commission. 8 -14 -78 -6 The Director of Public Works explained Brooklyn Center does not presently have industries that fall into the category which would be required to pay the industrial user strength charge. The net effect on Brooklyn Center of the metropolitan industrial user strength charge is to reduce Brooklyn Center's total payment by approximately . 5 %. The Director of Public Works explained that currently in Minnesota only a few municipalities are paying the metropolitan industrial user strength charge. South St. Paul, St. Paul and Minneapolis are currently paying the user strength charge Mayor Nyquist inquired whether anyone in the audience was in attendance to speak at the public hearing on the industrial strength charges There was no one in the audience to speak at the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council - members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager recommended the passage of a resolution amending the schedule of rates, fees and charges for the use of and connection to the sanitary sewer system of the City of Brooklyn Center. The amendment provides for the inclusion of the metropolitan industrial user strength charge to the current schedule of rates, fees and charges within the City. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -163 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF RATES, FEES AND - CHARGES FOR THE USE OF - AND CONNECTION TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced the Planning Commission items at the scheduled time of 8:15 p.m. The first item under consideration was Planning Commission Applica- tion No. 78032 submitted by Mr. R. L. Johnson requesting rezoning from R -3 to C -2 approximately 5 acres in the 7200 block on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission voted at its July 27, 1978 meeting to recommend denial of the application because the C -2 zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A resolution recommending denial of the application submitted by R. L. , Johnson was approved for recommendation to the City Council at the Planning Com- mission meeting held on August 10, 1978. The Director of Planning and In spection reviewed the history of the application noting that although the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group had favored the rezoning, the Planning Commission looked at the rezoning as spot zoning, not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -14 -78 -7- explained the Planning Commission voted 4 -1 at its July 27, 1978 . meeting to recommend denial of the application. The Planning Commission requested at that time that a resolution recommending, denial of the application submitted by R L. Johnson be drawn up by staff to be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting. The resolution was prepared and the Planning Commission voted 2 -1 to recommend the resolution as prepared by the staff to deny the Appli- cation No. 78032 as submitted by R. L. Johnson. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated two Planning Commissioners abstained citing the reasons that one of the abstaining Commissioners was not present at the meeting at which the application was considered and the. second abstaining Commissioner abstained because of business contacts and possible conflicts. Two other members of the Planning Commission were absent from the August 10 Planning Commission meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection also showed slides of the land in question. In response to questions from Councilmembers, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained the applicant wished to have a C -2 use on the northerly part of the land and a C -1 use on the southerly part of the land. It was further explained the Brooklyn Park property adjacent to the northerly part of the 5 acres located in Brooklyn Center is zoned comparably to Brooklyn Center C -2 use. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 78032 submitted by Mr. R. L. Johnson. There was no one present to speak on the application. The applicant was invited to present additional comments. Mr. Johnson presented a scale model of the proposed development indicating that certain minor changes had been made. Mr. Johnson indicated the develop- ment as proposed provided for an adequate buffer zone thereby making it compat- ible with the uses already in the area. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 78032 Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Further discussion ensued concerning the application submitted by Mr. R. L. Johnson. Councilmember Scott expressed concern that the C -2 use does not meet the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines. She indicated she would be more favorable to a C -1 zoning on the southerly part of the land and a 0-2 zoning on the northerly part of the land. Councilmember Scott indicated although much of the land is unbuildable and Mr. Johnson has the best intentions in the development proposal, rezoning should not be based on development concept. Mayor Nyquist concurred with Councilmember Scott's comments also expressing a preference for a C -1 zoning in the southerly part of the land and a C -2 zoning in the northerly part of the land He further expressed concern for rezoning the entire 5 acres as C -2 with the traffic that would be generated with the C -2 use. 8 -14 -78 -8- He felt peak traffic with the restaurant would coincide with the other peak traffic on the Boulevard, Councilmember Fignar stated although restaurants do generate a certain amount of traffic, restaurants of the type mentioned in the development do not generate excessive outside traffic, rather, the people who come to this type of restaurant usually come from the near vicinity for the convenience factor. For this reason the restaurants do not generate excessive extra traffic from outside of the area, Councilmember Kuefler explained in his opinion the C -1 use in the southerly section of the land would be compatible with the townhouses in the area and the C -2 use in the northerly part of the land would be compatible with the Brooklyn Park use of the adjacent land, Mr. Johnson indicated he would be satisfied with a split zoning C -1, C-2. In response to questions from the Council, the City Attorney explained the Comprehensive Plan encouraged C -1 use along Brooklyn Boulevard and encouraged the C -1 use in groups. In the Comprehensive Plan, Brooklyn Boulevard is desig- nated as a roadway to permit flow of traffic through the City, not to bring traffic to the City. The City Attorney further indicated there are several other property parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard that people would like to see rezoned ,C -2 0 The City Attorney concluded that amending the -Comprehensive Plan to comprehend C -1 and C -2 use "in the parcel of land proposed for development by Mr. Johnson would be more far reaching than would at first be apparent. In response to questions from the Council the City Manager explained the properties left to be developed on Brooklyn Boulevard should be developed as low density areas according to the Comprehensive Plan, He further noted any business added to Brooklyn Boulevard will make traffic flow more difficult particularly because of left hand turns. Additional business would increase the number of vehicles and the frequency of vehicles passing through the air. Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to 'refer Application No. 78032 submitted by Mr. Johnson back to the Planning Commission with direction to the Planning Commission to study a possible amendment to the Comprehensive Plan considering the following; first, a C -1 use in the southerly part of the land and the C -2 use in the northerly part of the land would be compati- ble with the zoning in the adjacent sections of land both in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park; second, some conditions in that area make building difficult; third, the split zoning C -1, C -2 provides a buffered area near the creek; fourth, an R -3 zoning in the area may not be desirable because of the adjacency to Brooklyn Park where the land is commercially developed; fifth, the land locked acreage should be considered for rezoning to C -1, Finally, denial of the present applica- tion is recommended. In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Fignar urged the Planning Commission to deal with the application expediently in fairness to the developer. The City Manager indicated it might be feasible the application could be before the City 8 -14 -78 -9- Council at their last meeting in September but the process, being a democratic process, was slow. The City Manager concurred the application should be dealt with expediently but further explained the City would be living with the results of the decision for many years and it was necessary to carefully look at the development and its ramifications, The City Manager further explained the consultants working with the City on the new Comprehensive Plan would be carefully looking at the Brooklyn Boulevard area and its future development and needed time for this study. Councilmember Scott amended the motion on the floor and Councilmember Kuefler as seconder of the motion concurred with the amendment. Councilmember Scott moved the following two points: first, to deny Planning Commission Application No. 78032; second, to refer Application No. 78032 back to the Planninq Commission to study the feasibility of amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow for C -1 use on the southerly part of the land and C -2 use on the northerly part of the land for the five reasons as listed in the original amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -164 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 78032 SUBMITTED BY MR. R. L. JOHNSON 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. P:LWNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 78046 (PAMELA LANGREN) The City Manager introduced the next item, Planning Commission Application No. 78046 submitted by Pamela Langren for a special use permit for a home occupation (beauty shop) at 6224 Regent Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its July 27, 1978 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the Building Inspector had reviewed the building and found the proposed special use acceptable for the building. The Director of Planning and Inspection further explained a public hearing had been held on the special use permit and at that • time some of the neighbors had expressed concern about the possible decline in value of their own property due to the special use and about the possible increase in traffic in the area. These concerns were addressed at the public hearing and the neighbors appeared to be satisfied with the answers. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing. There was no one thereto speak on the application. The applicant showed the Council a flyer she had prepared which explained to her potential customers the require- ments that they call for an appointment and park in the driveway, Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against; none. The motion 8- -14 -78 -10- passed unanimously. Motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded'by'Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78046 submitted by Pamela Langren for a special use permit for a home occupation at 6224 Regent Avenue North with the following conditions of approval: 1 o The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. .2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3, A copy of the current State operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. All parking related to the special use shall be off street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. 5 Hours of operation shall be Monday, 1:00 - 9 :00 p.m., Thursday, 9:00 a.m. - 5 :00 p.m., and Friday, 9:00 a.m. 5:OO p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CEAP DISCUSSION The Mayor explained to the audience that consideration of LEAP would be held at this time because many of the people in the audience were interested in that issue. Forrest Castle, 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, presented a petition with a list of names of people from the Shingle Creek Tower, supporting CEAP. Mr. Castle further expressed personal concern, as a member of the Human Rights Commission, that the Council act to support LEAP. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Ed Theisen as a representative of CEAP to explain CEAP's position. Mr. Theisen explained during the last Council meeting he had presented background information on LEAP. At that time several questions were raised as to the cost effectiveness of CEAP particularly in regards to duplication of services. Mr. Theisen emphasized one of CEAP's strengths was its use of volunteers.. It is Mr. Theisen's belief that the use of volunteers makes LEAP the organization that it is and furthermore makes it extremely effective. He expanded on this contention through a further explanation of one of CEAP's programs, Meals At Your Door. Mr. Theisen concluded his comments with a reiteration of a request for Council support and explanation of a need that CEAP has for anew home in order to carry on services, Mayor Nyquist commented the' Council is well aware of the effectiveness of CEAP but the issue at hand was how the insurarice money should be handled. 8 -14 -78 -11- Councilmember Kuefler indicated past action has shown the Council philosoph- ically agrees with the need for CEAP and the fact that CEAP has been an effective organization. Councilmember Kuefler suggested a figure of $155,000 to be contributed to CEAP to build a building and continue services. Council- member Lhotka also expressed support for CLAP but expressed a concern with the amount of dollars as suggested by Councilmember Kuefler. Councilmember Scott concurred with former comments on the need for CEAP within Brooklyn Center. She indicated she did not think there was a duplication of service but rather that certain needs were growing in Brooklyn Center and the referral system within CEAP is particularly effective in dealing with the growing needs She felt CEAP was particularly effective in helping people surmount the govern- mental bureaucratic red tape in order to have their needs taken care of. Council- member Fignar expressed support for CEAP and further commented he felt that his questions about duplication of services had been answered by the CEAP organization. Councilmember Fignar explained presently his position would be to commit $115,000 to be paid to CEAP as progress is made in completing the building. He suggested that seek pledges from businesses in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park to raise the balance of the money. In response to questions from the Council Mr. Theisen explained the fund raising plan as developed thus far included the following: free will offerings from churches, a raffle of an automobile, donations from the business community, and donations from the downtown Council. Mr. Theisen indicated realistically CEAP could plan on approximately $25,000 in donations. In response to other questions from Council members Mr. Theisen explained the present plan for a new building had been scaled back to 6,000 square feet which includes the warehousing space to store clothing, furniture and food. In Mr. Theisen's estimation, the footage could not be reduced further or the entire program would be negatively impacted. CEAP had estimated the total cost of a 6,000 square foot building would be $208,000 including site work. There were further comments from Councilmember Fignar and from Mayor Nyquist indicating CEAAP estimates were high in comparison with figures provided to Councilmember Fignar and Mayor Nyquist, Councilmember Fignar noted he had received an estimate of $20 a square foot for a warehousing space and $30 a square foot for office space. The Building Official indicated the difference might be related to inclusion of site improvement costs, In response to a question from Councilmember Lhotka, Mr. Theisen related CE.AP was prepared to acquire sufficient operating capital but that the building was needed. Operating capital is acquired in the following manner: approxi- mately $30,000 per year from churches; approximately $6,000 - $8,000 from the CEAP Ball; approximately $2,000 - $5,000 from the 24 hour relay; and additional contributions from businesses, organizations and foundations. Motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to commit $115,000 to a CE.AP building fund to be paid out at proper intervals I as determined by the building progress. • In discussion of the motion the City Manager suggested it might be helpful to instruct staff to draw up the contracts for review by the City Council. 8 -14 -78 -12- In further discussion Councilmember Kuefler expressed the fact he felt CEAP had a greater need than $115, 000. "Councilmember Kuefler again suggested a $155, 000 commitment to CEAP. Councilmember Kuefler indicated beyond that point, CEAP would be able to take care of their own operating costs. Councilmember Lhotka questioned whether or not the City can legally commit $155,000 or any amount specifically to a building fund. The City Attorney responded .a specific commit - ment to a building fund was legally questionable. Councilmember Kuefler commented it was important that the wording of the contract be worked out in such a way that the contract met legal requirements. The City Manager suggested wording within the contract which would tie the contract with LEAP to services operating from a building as a possible remedy to the situation. The City Attorney suggested the language in the motion as presented by Councilmember Fignar would be open to a great deal of interpretation and may not be defensible in a court situation. The City Attorney suggested a contract stipulating equal payments of a certain amount over a certain period of years such as $30, 000 per year over a four year using the contract language of August 11 , 1978. Councilmember Fignar withdrew the motion on the floor and the seconder of the motion, Councilmember Kuefler, concurred. Motion by Councilmember Fignar to designate $115,000 to a contract for services payable in .four equal payments. The contract language would appear as per the August 11 , 1978 wording and the contract would include a release clause, releasing the City from further liability. There was not a second to the motion. Councilmember Kuefler again expressed concern that $115,000 was not adequate. He further stated if LEAP °s estimates were troubling to the Council it would be better to check the estimates to see if they in fact were high. Mr. Theisen responded to questions from the Council that the motion as presented by Council- member Fignar was acceptable in concept but the dollar amount was inadequate. In response to further questions from the Council the City Attorney suggested in order to make a contract more defensible, a contract for service with payments extended over a period of years would be most appropriate. Councilmember Fignar reworded the motion. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to commit $115,000 to CEAP for services for the next four years to be paid at intervals and to be paid in full upon completion of the building. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROTECT The City Manager introduced the next item, amending Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -18 and Resolution Nos. 78 -101 and 78 -122. The City has received a petition from the property owners of the proposed Irving Estates Sub- division requesting this amendment. 8 =14 -78 -13- RESOLUTION NO. 78 -165 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION AMENDING SANITARY SEWER PROJECT NO. 1978 -18 AND RESOLUTION NOS. 78 -101 AND 78 -122 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. ADDITION OF AMENDED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City Manager introduced the next item, ordering the addition of amended Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -18 to Contract 1978 -D. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -166 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ORDERING ADDITION OF AMENDED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -18 TO CONTRACT 1978 -D The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being tarn 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. ACCEPTING WORK FOR CONTRACT The City Manager introduced the next item of business, accepting Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1977 -19 completed by Hardrives, Inc. The work was completed in the area of Lyndale Avenue North from 59th Avenue to 62nd Avenue North. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -167 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK (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. The City Manager further recommended acceptance of the work completed by Hardrives, Inc. for the Curb and Gutter improvement Project No. 1977 -20 also located on Lyndale Avenue North from the center line of 59th Avenue North to the center line of 62nd Avenue North. 8 -14 -78 -14- RESOLUTION NO. 78 -168 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK (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. It was brought to the Director of Public Work's attention that a large chunk of curb in that area had been broken off, The Director of Public Works responded that another inspection would be made and the area would be repaired. The City Manager recommended the acceptance of work for Water Main Improve- ment Project No. 1 978 -3 completed by Deluxe Construction, Inc. located in the area of 70th Avenue North from June Avenue to future Kyle Avenue North, RESOLUTION N 78 -169 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK (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 introduced the next item, accepting bid and approving the contract for Water Tower Maintenance Contract 1978 -Go Bids were received for repainting Water Tower No. 2 located at 69th and Dupont Avenue North on - August 9, 1978, Two bids were received and the City Manager recommended that the bid of Schumann Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $43,000 be accepted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -170 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM_ (WATER TOWER MAINTENANCE PROJECT NO. 1978 -30 - CONTRACT 1978 -G) 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 g , P 1 was declared duly passed and adopted. 8 -14 -78 -15- AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY BRICK REPAIR The City Manager introduced the next item, authorizing emergency brick repair on the south and west walls of the Community Center. The City Manager recom mended the quotation of Carciofini Caulking C n q o. i the amount of $9,500 be i accepted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -171 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF SPALLED AND DEFECTIVE BRICK 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. ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS FOR ALLEY AND STREET WORK The City Manager introduced the next item, accepting quotations for alley paving, street paving, gravel base and /or curb and gutter in the following alleys: between fames Avenue and Knox Avenue, between Twin Lake Avenue and Lakeview Avenue, between Humboldt and Irving Avenue, and the following streets: 70th Avenue, fames Circle, Irving Avenue and Irving Lane, and Aldrich Avenue o The acceptance of the quotations as'listed in the following five resolutions provides for a method of constructing the street and alley paving projects for which formal bids were received twice, in an amount which was over twice the engineer's estimate for the work to be accomplished. It is estimated that by doing the work on a quota- tion basis, it is possible to accomplish the work for less than the engineer's estimate. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -17 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR ALLEY SURFACING (CONTRACT 1978 -H) 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 -173 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR STREET BASE (CONTRACT 1978 --I) 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 8 -14 -78 -16- Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO, 78 7174 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR STREET SURFACING (CONTRACT 1978 -K) 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 pass.ed and adopted, RESOLUTION NO, 78 -175 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR STREET SURFACING (CONTRACT 1978 -L) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO 78 -176 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR CURB AND GUTTER (CONTRACT 1978 -M) 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 Director of Public Works explained one more resolution concerning street and alley work would be presented at the next Council meeting. ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT The City Manager introduced the next item, establishing projects for water main improvement, storm sewer improvement, street grading, base and surfacing improvement and /or curb and gutter improvement. The projects comprehend improvements for 1) the utility and street construction necessary for plat 3 and 4 of the Ponds Development; 2) the storm sewer and street construction necessary for development of Phase VII of the Ponds Development, RESOLUTION NO, 78 -177 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 8 -14 -78 -17- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TRUNK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1978 -31, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -32, STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT. PROJECT NO. 1978 -33,' AND CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -34 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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 -178 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1978 -35, STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -36, AND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -37 AND ORDERING PREPARA- TION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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. DISCUSSIO OF HEALTH AND SANITATION ORDINANCE NO. 8 -108 The City Manager introduced the next item, a discussion of Health and Sanitation Ordinance No. 8 -108, At the July 24, 1978 City Council meeting a representative from Mrs. Jaycees requested Ordinance No. 8- 108.01 be amended to allow social or service agencies to prepare food in their home for sale at organization sponsored functions. The City Manager explained Mr, Tom Heenan, the City Sanitarian, was present at the Council meeting to comment on that request, Mr. Heenan explained two areas of concern. The two areas of concern were the possible health hazards and the question of equity, Mr. Heenan explained it was likely the homes of the Mrs. Jaycees did not present a hazard but he explained there are homes in Brooklyn Center which would be questionable in terms of health. Councilmember Kuefler asked how our ordinance compared with other municipalities on this question. Mr. Heenan replied Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Brooklyn Park and Crystal had ordinances that were almost identical to Brooklyn Center's. When asked as to his professional opinion on the question, the City Sanitarian indicated it was his professional opinion, the ordinance be retained as is. The City Attorney suggested if it was the Council's wish to change the ordinance he would like to work on ordinance language other than "social or service agencies" with the City Sanitarian, Motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to amend the present Health and Sanitation Ordinance No, 8- 108.01 with appropriate language as determined by the City Sanitarian and the City Attorney, Voting in 8 -14 -78 -18- favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: Councilmember Lhotkao The motion passed COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS The City Manager introduced the next item of business, a discussion of Community Development Block Grants. A brief discussion ensued concerning progress in a study of the feasibility of applying for Community Development Block Grants. The City Manager explained at the next Council meeting, a joint powers agreement with Hennepin County would be presented for the Council's review, TWIN LAKE BEACH The City Manager introduced the next item, a discussion on Twin Lake Beach, The City Manager explained a petition from the residents of the Beach apartment complaining about the activity at Twin Lake Beach had been received. Council- member Kuefler informed the Council the Park and Recreation Commission has scheduled a discussion on the Twin Lake Beach area for the August meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission, BENCH TRIALS WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The City Manager introduced the next item, a resolution requesting continuance of bench trials and arraignments of the Hennepin County Municipal Court in the City of Brooklyn Center, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -179 _.� Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF BENCH TRIALS AND ARRAIGNMENTS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 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 Scotty and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SHADE TREE REMOVAL The City Manager introduced the next item, a recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the purchase of the removal of diseased shade trees. The City Manager explained the original contractor, initially hired by the City to remove diseased shade trees had had trouble and was not able to complete the task, The Director of Parks and Recreation explained the original contractor has had trouble with weather and certain employees and although the contractor was making a conscientious effort to comply with the original timetable, the contractor was behind in the work. It is recommended the City Council contract with another contractor to help complete the tree removal effort. The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated both contractors would work to complete the work on schedule. The City Manager recommended a contract for the purchase of diseased shade tree removal in the amount of $2,779,,21 from Design Tree Service, 4300 Brookdale Drive, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, be accepted. 8 -14 -78 -19- RESOLUTION NO 78 -180 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL 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. DISCUSSION OF PURCHASE OF A NEW COMPRESSOR CHILLER The City Manager introduced the next item, a resolution authorizing the purchase of a new 60 ton reciprocating compressor chiller furnished and installed. It is recommended that the quotation of Palen - Kimball Company in the amount of $8,000 be accepted for the purchase of a 60 ton reciprocating compressor chiller furnished and installed complete, RESOLUTION NO, 78 -181 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A NEW 60 TON RECIPROCATING COMPRESSOR CHILLER FURNISHED AND INSTALLED COMPLETE 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. LICENSES Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve the following list of licenses: GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Bautch Disposal Service 10264 Xylite St. N.E. MCS - Tarco of Minnesota 10041 Polk St. N.E. Viking Sanitation, Inc. P. 0. Box 12844 ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Citizen Band Serving People (CBSP) 411 24th Ave. N.E. (Holiday Inn) MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Central Air Conditioning 1971. Senca Road Elster's Company 915 N. Citrus Ave. Home Heating & Air Conditioning 5211 Eden Road Midland Heating Co. 6442 Penn Ave. So. Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Ave. So. 8 -14 -78 -20- i NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Richard Exsted Box 1, Bethel, MN Ground Round Restaurant 2545 Cty. Rd. 10 SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Thomas Sign Co. Clearwater, MN TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Brooklyn: Center Jaycees 5321 Penn Ave. No: (Picnic - Kylawn Park) Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to adjourn the City 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 meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 8 -14 -78 - -21- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1978 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to hold a public hearing on special assessments at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, the 25th day of September, 1978, at 8 :00 p.m., central daylight time, on the following improvements: Water Main 1977 -15 1978 -17 Sanitary Sewer 1977 -16 1978 -18 1977 -21 1978 -25 Storm Sewer 1978 -19 4 1978 -26 Street Surfacing 1977 -14 1977 -17 Tree Removal 1978 -1 and P.U. Water Hookups and Sanitary Sewer Hookups Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Resolution No. The motion f a of on or the adoption of the foregoing resolution was dul P g g Y seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PLACING ON FILE AND OPENING PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to order placed on file in the Clerk's office and opened for public inspection the proposed assessments on the following improvements: Water Main i 1977 -15 1978 -17 Sanitary Sewer 1977 -16 1978 -18 1977-21 -2 77 1 1978 5 Storm Sewer i 1978 -19 1978 -26 Street Surfacing 1977 -14 1977 -17 Tree Removal 1978 -1 and P.U. Water Hookups and Sanitary Sewer Hookups Date Mayor i ATTEST: Clerk Resolution No. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted g o in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, i • i E Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING Q UOTATION FOR CURB AND GUTTER (CONTRACT 1978 -N) WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for the purchase of merchandise, materials, or equipment, or any kind of construction work by informal quotations when the amount of such contract is less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has obtained quotations for Contract 1978 -N which consists of Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -28 and said quotations were as follows: Firm: Quotation Halvorson Construction Company $9,676.00 Concrete Curb Company 9,999.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has analyzed said quotations and has found the apparent low quotation to be in order. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the q uotation of Halvorson Construction Company in the amount of $9,676.00, as to furnishing of all work, labor, and material in connection with the above - mentioned improvement project, according to the plans and specifications therefor now on file in the office of the City Clerk, is deemed to be the ,lowest and best quotation submitted for said work be a responsible contractor and said quotation is hereby accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with said contractor. 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: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota, Walhunt Construction, Inc., has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -18 Proposed Irving Lane from an existing manhole 718 feet east of Logan Avenue North easterly 118 feet; along proposed Irving Lane from Irving Avenue North westerly approximately 175 feet; and the installation of a sanitary sewer service to Lot 1, Block 1, of proposed Irving Estates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is greater than the original contract amount by $2,350.02 due to the following: a) Upon request by the developer, the Brooklyn Center City Council on August-14, 1978, adopted Resolution No. 78 -165 and 78 -166 amending said project and said contract, thereby increasing the contract amount for said project by $2,700.0,0. b) A reduction in the amount of granular bedding and backfili material plan quantities reduced the contract amount by $349.98. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be $5,803.58. Date Mayon Resolution No. ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Walhunt Construction, Inc., -has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Storm Sewer'Improvement Project No. 1978 -19 Irving Avenue North from 70th Avenue North to proposed Irving Lane. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $863.40 because of an overestimation of the plan quantities for granular bedding and backfill materials and sodding. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be $5,861.25. 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. SOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Walhunt Construction, Inc;, has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -25 Proposed James Circle from Freeway Boulevard southerly approximately 545 feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is greater than the original contract amount by $1,732.42 due to the following: a) Change Order No. 3, increasing the contract amount by $1,128.68, comprehended certain modifications to an existing water lateral due to an unforeseen conflict of the lateral with the new sanitary sewer main. b) An increase in quantity of 8" sanitary sewer main and sanitary sewer manholes due to realignment of the main necessitated by the unforeseen conflicts with existing utility lines,'.- esulted in an increase to the contract amount of $603.74.' 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be $12,388.72. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Resolution No. • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and up on vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Walhunt Construction, Inc,., has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Storm Sewer improvement Project No. 1978 -26 On the south side of Freeway Boulevard from proposed James Circle easterly approximately 200 feet to an existing inlet on Freeway Boulevard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council.of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is greater than the original contract amount by $7.68 due to a general underestimation of plan quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be $5,486.78 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978-D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Walhunt Construction, Inc., has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -21 Aldrich Avenue North from 68th Avenue North northerly approximately 340 feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is less than the original . contract amount by $296.92 because of an overestimation of the plan quantities for 6" ductile iron pipe and l" copper service pipe. 3 It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be, $7,477.33. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: -and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Walhunt Construction, Inc., has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: _ Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -22 Aldrich Avenue North from 68th Avenue North northerly approximately 330 feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $340.58 because of an overestimation of the plan quantities for 8" sanitary sewer main and 6" sanitary sewer laterals. •3 It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be $5,335.24. Date Mayor ATTESTS Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution.was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Walhunt Construction, Inc., has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance 'with said contracts Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -23 Aldrich Avenue North from 68th Avenue North northerly approximately 160 feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $105.92 because of an overestimation of the plan . quantities for 15" reinforced concrete pipe. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be $3,552.53. 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 duly passed and adopted. Member introduced - the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CITY OF RICHFIELD LAWSUIT CONTESTING PELRA COMPULSORY BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISIONS WHEREAS, - the City of Richfield has initiated a lawsuit contesting -the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of PELRA (City of Richfield -is. Local No. 1215, International Association of Fire Fighters and State of Minnesota, Intervenor); and WHEREAS, 'this lawsuit is currently under appeal - to - the Minnesota Supreme Court; and WHEREAS, the PELRA binding arbitration provisions delegate fundamental decisions regarding the kind, extent and cost of governmental services -to private politically unaccountable individuals; and WHEREAS, cities in Minnesota have generally had poor experience with these binding arbitration provisions in that decisions have been unfair, inflationary and detrimental to the collective bargaining process; and WHEREAS, other viable, more fair and just alternatives do exist 'to 'the PELRA binding arbitration provisions. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of ,the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as follows: 1. That this City supports the City of Richfield in this lawsuit and directs that a copy of this resolution of support be filed with the League of Minnesota Cities. 2. That - the sum of $100 is hereby authorized to be paid - to - the League of Minnesota Cities - to assist in financing the cost of appealing this lawsuit to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for - the adoption of - the foregoing resolution was seconded by member , and upon vote - thereof - the following voted in favor: and - the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. M & C No 78 -25 August 25, 1978 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject; Richfield Lawsuit Contesting PELRA Compulsory Binding Arbitration Provisions To the Honorable Mayor and City Council; The City of Richfield requests our support in a lawsuit contesting the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act (PELRA) . The lawsuit arose over an arbitration panel award issued for a 1976 labor contract with Local 1215, International Association of Firefighters. On January 19, 1978 a Hennepin County District Court judge issued an Order and Memorandum denying the City's motion to declare the compulsory binding arbitra- tion provisions of PURA unconstitutional and refusing-to vacate -the arbitration award pertaining to issue IX of - the contract. The City of Richfield appealed the decision to - the Minnesota Supreme Court. A hearing date of September or October is expected. The Board of - the League of Minnesota Cities voted to support this Richfield action because it is consistent with League policies on impass resolution with public employee unions and potentially will impact on cities throughout - the State This lawsuit is the first attempt to determine the constitutionality of the compul- sory binding arbitration provisions of PURA in Minnesota. The effort has been successful in certain other states. The Council can express its support in one or both of the following ways; • 1. Pass a resolution expressing support for - the City of Richfield in - the lawsuit. 2. Contribute $100 to the League of Minnesota Cities 'to help defray the cost of the Supreme Court appeal. There is no question that a Supreme Court decision in favor of the City of Richfield would be an advantage to the City of Brooklyn Center in future negotiations with essential public employee bargaining units. GGS:dkw Y August 10, 1978 Cl) Mr. Gerald Splinter N City Manager I 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway LD Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 cc Dear Gerry: ® I am writing to provide information and seek the support of your city in our lawsuit contesting the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act. This action was initiated by the Richfield City Council as a result of an arbitration panel award issued AO k E March 31, 1977 for a 1976 labor contract with Local 1215, a International Association of Fire Fighters. In addition to the question of whether binding arbitration is con- • stitutional, the lawsuit involves Issue IX of this arbi- LM tration award concerning contract duration. The Attorney General intervened at the district court level on the side of the bargaining unit to defend the w > constitutionality of the statute. In addition, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees AFL -CIO joined the proceedings as amici curiae at this lower court level in support of the bargaining unit position. On January 19, 1978, Judge Allen Oleisky M in Hennepin County District Court issued an Order and Memorandum denying the city's motion to declare the com- pulsory binding arbitration provisions of PERLA uncon ® stitutional and refusing to vacate the arbitration award pertaining to Issue IX: 0 The Richfield City Council decided to appeal the lower a court decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. While a Supreme Court hearing date has not yet been set, the court has indicated a preference to hear this matter early in the fall term and we can anticipate a date in late September or early October. • In June, 1977, the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors voted to support this Richfield action. The Board found it to have very great potential impact on cities throughout the state. Moreover, the Richfield telephone; 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer Page Two August 10, 1978 • position was consistent with adopted League pol s on impass resolution with public employee.unions. The League has joined the proceedings as amici curiae at the Supreme Court level and will assist in coordinating efforts of individual local governments who wish to support the lawsuit. The City of Richfield and the League of Minnesota Cities have both filed their Supreme Court briefs. On the other side, the Attorney General, and AFCME have f iled_their briefs. The IAFF has not yet filed its brief but is expected to do so shortly. In addition, the Minnesota Education Association has intervened at the Supreme Court level and will file a brief on behalf of it's membership in support of the arbitration provisions. This lawsuit is the first attempt to determine the constitutionality of the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of PELRA since first enacted in 1971. However, similar efforts have occurred in other states with varying degrees of success. The most recent litigation occurred in Texas where a lower court decision found the Texas arbitration law unconstitutional. Early in July the Hartford, Connecticut Superior Court found that state's compulsory arbitration law unconstitutional. A copy of an NLC news article on this Connecticut decision is attached. You will note in the article on the Connecticut decision -that 75 Connecticut municipalities helped to support the action initiated in that state. We believe that in addition to LMC support it would be very helpful for the court and our state legislatures to know that a largq number of cities in the state are concerned with the binding arbitration provisions in the state statutes. Therefore, I am asking that you bring this matter to the attention of your city council and recommend that your city support our action through adoption of the attached resolution We are requesting that interested cities help defray the cost of ,the Supreme Court appeal with a $100 contribution (should contributions exceed costs, we will return the balance on a pro rata basis). How- ever, please note that the contribution is not a prerequisite for the resolution of support. It is most important that cities indicate their positions with respect to this litigation by adopting a resolution similar to the sample which is attached. Please send a copy of your city's resolution to: Mr. Stan Peskar, General Counsel League of Minnesota Cities 300 Hanover Building 480 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Checks should be made out to the League of Minnesota Cities and • designated for this binding arbitration lawsuit. ` Page Three August 10, 1978 • Inasmuch as the Supreme Court could hear this case as early as next month, we would appreciate a response as soon as possible. Any inquiries on details of the case should be directed to Stan Peskar, 612/222 -2861 or our attorney Dennis O'Brien 612 /333 -0543 with the firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Pearson, O'Brien & Drawz. I would be happy to answer any other questions or provide any other additional information you desire. Sincerely yours Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB /jkl Enclosures • 1 J National:.:' =' L.eague of Cities s "C t ♦F f a', ! tf 3 `4. 6 y !? i ;�. MP 1 % ♦' k' i b )J* YJ 9hY ��;J` �+ltY�i/ {� � � 1 . if 1 ,• 1 Volume 1, Number 24 Washington, D.C. July 10, 1978 Connecticut court nullifies towns and one taxpayer. Since February, 1976, when the original suit compulsory ar bitration la was filed, 75 additional municipalities contributed to the costs of this land- mark case.. The Hartford, Conn., Superior Connecticut constitutions by Statewide, municipal officials ap- Court last week declared the state law delegating the power to determine plauded this decision as a return of mandating compulsory binding ar- conditions of employment for responsibility to local control. 'This bitration between a municipality and a municipal employees to an arbitration decision returns the municipal union unconstitutional. The suit panel that is not politically ac collective bargaining process to its challenging the constitutionality of the countable to the state legislature, the rightful place —the negotiating table;" law was initiated by the Connecticut municipal government, or taxpayers said Mayor Arthur B. Powers of Conference of Municipalities (CCM) and voters of Connecticut. Berlin, the CCM's president. "The more than two years ago. The law also fails through elected and appointed representatives The law required a union and a procedural faults to declare a of the municipal taxpayers and the municipality, if they were unable to legislative policy or to establish suf- union representatives now again have agree on a collective bargaining ficient "standards to guide the ar- the final responsibility for deter- contract, to submit the issues to an bitration panel in its decision- making, mining, through free collective arbitration panel, which would then the court said, and the law fails to bargaining, the salaries, fringe benefits impose a contract on the two parties. provide a meaningful process of and working conditions of the In declaring this mandated collective judicial review. municipal employees providing ser bargaining- unconstitutional, the The case was brought to court by vices- to our citizens." Superior Court pointed out that the CCM in the names of eight plaintiff Sharon Walters law violates both the United States and MEMO TO: 'Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Al Lindmam, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ceramic Tiling of-Community Center Areas DATE: August 25, 1978 In conjunction with the bid on - the tiling of - the swimming pool, we also requested a price for any additional work which we may request. The contractor quoted a price of $3.30 per square foot for this work. The areas involved are as follows: Area Sq . Ft. Cost Girls' Locker Area 1,100 $3,630 Hallway from Girls Locker Area 279 920 Boys' Locker Area 1,270 4,191 Sauna Floor 126 417 • *Main Entryway Community Center 660 2,178 11,336 Less overage from swimming pool - tiling contract -1,750 budgeted amount $9,586 These areas are very difficult to maintain daily and - the annual renovations consume considerable - time and money. It is my recommendation 'that the, City proceed with the additional tiling projects. ' *This item is contemplated in - the 1979 budget. t Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES WHEREAS, 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: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to authorize the issuance and sale by Special Assessment Construction Fund No. 58, Temporary Improvement Notes in the amount of $80,000. These notes shall be dated August 14, 1978, and shall be payable out of proceeds of the final bond issue for the projects. These notes shall bear an interest rate of 6% per annum in accordance with Resolu- tion No. 74 -32, dated February 25, 1974, which established an interest rate on loans from the Investment Trust Fund to other City Funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center Investment Trust Fund be authorized to purchase these notes.' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the aforementioned notes. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. M & C No. 78 -26 y August 24, 1978 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject Review of Planning Commission Application No. 77064 Sub- mitted by Gene Hamilton and a Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 35 Regarding Carports and Canopies To City Manager Gerald Splinter: Attached it a copy of a_June 2, 1978 memorandum from former Director of Planning and.Inspection Blair Tremere, relating to Planning Commission Application No 77064 and a proposed ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission re- lating to definitions of canopies and carports. The memorandum has been updated by including copies of all Planning Commission and City Council minutes relating to these two subjects. Particular attention should be given to these minutes as they provide a chronology of events with respect to the Planning Commission's review of these matters and, also, the rationale-leading to its recommendations. You have asked me to review these items in detail and provide my observations and comments relating to them. I feel there is some confusion with respect to these two separate, but related, matters. . First of all, Application No. 77064 is an appeal to an administrative ruling made by the Building Official, and concurred with by'the former Director of Planning and Inspection, that a building permit could not be issued for a carport structure erected by Mr. Hamilton because that structure extended 20 feet into the 35 foot front yard setback required for the property. The structure had been built without a building permit. The Building Official ruled that the structure was 'a carport, and by its use (providing for off- street vehicle parking or vehicle storage) was an accessory structure that could not encroach on the established setback standards. Mr. Hamilton's appeal to this ruling is based on the contention that because the term "carport is not specifically defined in the Zoning Ordinance, the erected structure should be considered a "canopy" (also not specifically defined in the Zoning Ordinance) which, by Section 35 -400 (8) (a) is allowed to encroach on the setback requirement. He feels that the placement of his home on the lot, side yard setbacks, numerous trees, and the lack of alleys make it virtually impossible to construct a detached garage in the rear and have access to it. Also, he contends the structure was erected for the purposes of safety, that it provides protection for the vehicle from the elements and related dangerous conditions. He indicates the neighboring property owners do not object and the structure does not detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Another aspect which is separate, although related to - the appeal, has to do with recommended ordinance language dealing with canopies and carports. When the Comis .sion first heard the Hamilton appeal on November 10, 1977, they indicated that there might be a need to clarify the ordinance by defining canopies and carports to avoid • confusion in the future. Also, the Commission felt there might be merit in pursuing the idea of permitting carports to encroach on front yard setbacks through an ordinance amendment. This developed into a major research task undertaken by the staff, and Mr. Hamilton was informed that'the matter of securing a building permit would be held in abeyance pending resolution of the appeal 4 Wage 2 The appeal and the matter of possible ordinance amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission again on December 8, 1977. The matter of ordinance language was further researched, and during discussion of the matter on March -23, 19.78, the Commission arrived at a general consenus regarding definitions for awnings, canopies, and carports. The matter of the appeal was not discussed at this meeting. There seems to be a feeling that the Planning Commission was not definitive in its recommendations regarding the appeal and the ordinance amendment. I feel this can be clarified by a closer look at the record. On May 11, 1978 the Planning Commission doted to recommend denial of Mr. Hamilton's appeal. The matter of the appeal was not again discussed_by the Commission at any subsequent meetings. Although the Commission's vote was not unanimous (five in favor) one opposed, and one abstention),.review of the minutes indicates that all of the Commissioners seem to be in favor of upholding the Building Official's ruling. This is based on comments made earlier in the meeting by the Commission member who voted against the denial, where he states "that there was no uniqueness involved, that the front setback requirement was 35 feet for any structure, that the carport is an accessory structure, and that he was in favor of upholding the Building Official's ruling. He continued that he felt the issue of whether a carport could be located in the front setback should be further discussed. Later in that meeting the same Commission member voted against denying the appeal stating "the Commission should address the issue of amending the ordinance to permit carports in the front yard setback." The Commission member that abstained from voting on the appeal, had earlier in the meeting stated "that he did not feel the structure was a- canopy, and felt that the Building Official was right in determining it was not permitted` under the ordinance." • With respect to the Commission's recommendation to deny the appeal, I feel it was clearly heir intent that ' Y t the Building Official's interpretation should be upheld. it should also be ointed out a p that this interpretation is consistent with past p p interpretations. There are other carports in the City, which have been required to meet setback requirements. The Commission continued to review ordinance language which would, in effect, address Mr. Hamilton's problem. A draft ordinance amendment, the results of much Commission discussion, was presented to the Planning Commission on May 25, 1978. A copy of that ordinance, as presented, is attached with this memorandum. Section 1 of that draft clarifies a carport as an accessory structure; Section 2 is language that would permit carports to encroach on front yard setbacks with certain limit- ations (this section would permit Mr. Hamilton's carport); Section 3 specifically defines "canopies" and "carports° After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of Sections 1 and 3 of the ordinance. On a vote of three in favor, two opposed, and one abstention (one member was also not in attendance), the Commission recommended deleting Section 2 from the proposed ordinance on the basis that neither carports nor any building should be allowed to encroach into the established front Yard setback. The Commissioner abstaining stated "that while he felt there was merit in the proposed amendment, he did not feel that enough consideration had been given to all of the consequences of revising an established ordinance standard." Page 3 The Planning Commission again reviewed the ordinance language on June 22, 1978 after offering Mr. Hamilton the opportunity to comment on the ordinance and provide input. After further discussion of the matter, the Commission confirmed its previous action recommending an ordinance amending Chapter 35 relative to canopies and carports on a vote of four in favor, one opposed and one abstention (one Commission member was not in attendance). The member abstaining stated the matter merited further review. As an observation, it seems the fact that the appeal and the ordinance amendment are being reviewed concurrently lends further confusion to the issues. I feel the matter of the Building Official's interpretation that a carport is an accessory structure and must meet setback requirements is not an arbitrary interpretation and is based on past interpretations and can stand on its own merits. The absence of a definition for a carport does not invalidate the decision. Because ordinance language defining canopies and carports is also being proposed at the same time, it may give the impression that the City is trying to cover itself, so to speak. Approximately one year ago, in the Yesnes case, the City's interpret - ation of an Outlot was upheld in court without a specific definition of an Outlot, and now the Planning Commission is in the process of preparing ordinance language defining Outlots to avoid further problems. The ordinance language matter in this instance is being offered for the same purpose, to clarify any possible further confusion. The Planning Commission's rationale for not recommending ordinance language which would accommodate Mr. Hamilton's situation was that neither carports nor any other building should be allowed to encroach into the established setback. Setbacks have been established to provide for aesthetics, uniformity, open space for light, air, view and safety, to keep dwellings farther from the dust, noise and fumes of the street, and to provide space for off - street parking. They have long been held to be the perogative of local government provided they operate uniformly with respect to all similar property in a district and have a reasonsable relation to consider- ations of public health, safety and welfare. The current 35 ft.. front yard standard was established in the 1940's. Many persons have moved from central cities, where these typesof setbacks were not provided for, to the suburbs seeing these minimum requirements as desirable. Another question that seems to be raised by this application is the desirability, or perhaps even the reasonableness, of these requirements. One problem envisioned by permitting carports of this nature is that the obvious next request would be to allow them to be an enclosed structure. Also, if carports are allowed to encroach, why not allow other structures or additions of the same relative site to also encroach on'the standards. Comments have been made that the setback 'requirement is too restrictive and should be reduced to allow front yard expansion. A survey was done approximately two years ago regarding other community setbacks. The cities of Brooklyn Park, Edina, St. Louis Park, New Hope, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Crystal, Fridley and Golden Valley were surveyed. The front yard setback for these communities was either 30 or 35 ft. Brooklyn Center's setback requirement seems to be reasonable in relation to the other communities surveyed. If one follows the rationale that accessory carport structures should be within setback standards, then the requirements would have to be changed to 15 ft. to accommodate Mr. Hamilton's carport. Rage 4 I feel that many people in the City would see a carport structure as a viable alternative to provide protection for additional cars, and that there could well be a proliferation of these structures in front yards of single family residential areas should the encroachment be allowed. There are a number of different driveway layouts in the City, different than Mr. Hamilton's, that may not be as desirable to allow carport structures, b.ut it -would be difficult to deny building permits on this basis. The desirability of this or other encroachments into the front yard setback is the policy question that must be dealt with if ordinance amendments are to be contemplated. spectfully submitted, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mlg A DRAFT OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO CANOPIES AND CARPORTS Section 1. Section 35- 310 (1) (b) (3) and Section 35 -311 (1) (b) (3) are hereby • 'amended to read as follows: (3) One accessory building or car ort (either detached or attached to 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 accessory building or carport shall exceed 75% of the ground coverage area of the dwelling buildinq or 1000 square feet, whichever is lesser; and provided that the tota area of both accessory buildings or carports (either detached or attached to the dwelling building shall not exceed 100 0 /0 of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building, or 1100 square feet, whichever is lesser. ,S ection 2. Section 35- 400'(8) of the City Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following: (c)' In front yards of one and two family dwelli A carport, attached to the dwelli or to a garage, and permanently open on all sides other than where attached, provided all of the following are met _(i) the distance from:the outermost part of the carport to the front lot line shall be no less than 15 feet; (ii) the total area of the carport, as measured from outer edge to outer edge, shall not not exceed 200 square feet, (iii) the maximum heiaht shall be 15 feet or the roofline of the building to which the carport is attached, whichever is lesser (iv) the property shall conform with the requirements of Section 35 -310 3 in the case of one family d 1 i ngs, and of Secti 35 =311 T3 the case of two family ati�rel l i ngs , as to number and size of acce ssor y buildings or carports. Section 3. Section 35 -900 of the Uty Ordinances is hereby amended, in part, by the addition of the fallowing: Canopy - an accessory roof -like structure, either attached to or ehed 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 Ca rport - an accessory roof -like structure, either attached to or et — `T — ac ed from a permitted building, enclosed on not more than two sides except as otherwise provided by thi ordinance; which i designed to provide cover for approved off- street vehicle parking or vehicle storaee space 4 MEMORANDUM / TO: City Manager Gerald Splinter FROM:- Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere DATE: June 2, 1978 SUBJECT: Planning Cornmission Application No. 77064 Submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton and Proposed Ordinance to Chapter 35 'Regarding Carports and Canopies 1. Background on Application N o . 77064. Last October the Building Inspector was informed by a member of the City. Assessor's office that an attached accessory structure had been built extending out into the front yard of Mr. Hamilton's °residence at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Building Inspector notified ter. Hamilton that the Building Code requires a permit for structural additions and .that, upon reviewing the location of the carport, which extends 20 feet into the front yard setback, a building permit could not be issued since the location was in violation of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hamilton subsequently filed an appeal of the Administrative.Ruling as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance; contending that, while he had erected the structure without a_ permit, he believed the carport should be treated as a canopy. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance does allow canopies to encroach into yard setbacks, including front yard setbacks, and he noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically define or distinguish between carports and canopies. The Building Official, with my concurrence, informed Mr. Hamilton. and later conveyed to the Planning' Commission, which heard the appeal, that the accessory structure which Mr. Hamilton had erected was a "carport" by definition of its use, 'i.e. it is designed for and - intended to be used for the parking and storage of a motor vehicle; furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance clearly provides that no structures, primary or accessory, may be erected closer than 35 feet to the front property line, with the exception of canopies. The Planning Commission formally heard the appeal on November 10, 1977, December 8, 1977, and May 11, 1978. Attached are photocopies of the minutes of those three meetings. ''ihe minutes of the May 25, 1973 meeting are in eluded in the Council agenda packet. The Commission's final action was to recommend denial of the application, upholding the Building Official's _in- terpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and ruling under the Building Code. The result of this action if affirmed by the City Council would be to require the structure to be dismantled and, either relocated properly on the site or removed. The applicant submitted his application as "either an appeal or a variance" and he concurred with us that the m-atter, at least initially, was more appropri- ately an appeal from an Administrative Ruling. The Planning Commission did not consider the application as a variance, and -no- public hearings were held. 'Mr. ' Hamilton has been provided a copy.of the ordinance standards for granting a variance, but we informed.him that we frankly did not feel he could satisfy those standards as to uniqueness or- hardship. Nonetheless, he theoretically could apply for a variance if he firmly believes that the circumstances could be clearly shown to meet the ordinance standards. Page 2 t 2. Bac kground on Pro posed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 35 Regarding Carports and Canopies The Planning Commission, while upholding the Building Official's interpretation .of the intent of the Ordinance, determined that the Ordinance does not, but should specifically define and distinguish carports and canopies. The Commission directed staff to research available code and ordinance defi- nitions of these terms and provisions for allowing _them, especially on resi- dential -lots. They also directed that draft ordinance language should be prepared which would amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the matter, by providing definitions, and to develop language which would change the setback standards for front yards by allowing carports to encroach, subject to certain restrictions. The Commission was provided the research materials and the draft ordinance language, a copy of which is contained with the minutes for the May 25, 1978 meeting, Following lengthy deliberations over a period of months, it was the conclusion' of the Commission on'May 11 that the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to provide definitions and clarifying language with respect to accessory building area and size in the residential districts. The Commi- ssion, however, con- cluded that the Zoning Ordinance standards with respect to front yard setbacks should not be amended. Thus, the draft amending Chapter 35 which is on the Council - agenda for first reading, contains language which would clarify the provision for accessory building size and area in the R -1 and R -2 Districts; and would proyide definitions of carports and canopies. The adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments would not alter the circumstances of Mr. Hamilton's appeal, since carports would be distinguilshed from canopies, and are clearly described as accessory structures which are not permitted to encroach on established yard setbacks. t The next' item of business was consideration of Application Application No. 77064 No. 77064 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. fene 11ju i 1 tin,: 6230 (Mr, and tars. Gene ' Lee Avenue North, The item was introdu,:•ed by the Hamilton) Secretary who stated the applicant has filed an ,appeal per Section 35 -251 of tha 12niiin Ordinance based upon a determination by the Building Official that an accessory structure erected by the applicant without a building permit cannot be permitted since it encroaches 20 'feet into the front ( yard setback. He stated the open -sided structure which is attiched to the front of the applicant's house in front of a'tuck -under garage is a carport by its common vse'definitioti, Building Code definition and by tnd - applicant•s description. He stated that carports are permitted accessory buildings within the established Setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance and the construction is requirements of the Building Code. He stated the applicant contends that the structure can also be defined as.a "canopy" and, therefore, is specifically excepted oy the Zoning Ordinance as an encroachment into the front yard. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance at Section 35 -400 states that off- street open parking Soces, terraces, awnings, and canopies. among other . things, are not considered as encroachments on any, yard setback requirements He stated the Building Official's position is that the • carport is an accessory structure and cannot be con - strued as a canopy within the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary showed slides of the property and a brief discussion ensued. Chairman Scott then recognized Mr. and Mrs..Hamilton, l and Mr. Hamilton described the structure and explained that it was bolted to his house and projected approxi- mately 20 feet into the front yard. He stated the Structure was a shelter for his car and fell within v_ the Zoning Ordinance classification of canopy and therefore, was not an encroachment into the front yard setback. He cited dictionary definitions of " canopy" and "awnings." _ Mr. Hamilton also commented that cars today are much sore necessity than they were in the past, and that r two cars operated daily are very common, whereas at the time his house was built this was not so true.`' He Stated that due to the placement of the house on the lot, sideyard setbacks, numerous trees, and lack of alleys, it would be virtually impossible to construct : a detached garage in the rear and have access to it by - a car.. He also stated that the structure was erected i for purposes of safety, and that it provides protection for the vehicle from the elements and related dangerous - { conditions. . He also noted that a petitionrhad been signed by neighboring property owners indicated acknowledgement and approval of the location of the carport. Mr. Hamilton also stated he felt the structure did not 'detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood and provided some relief to the uniformity of the lots and homes along the street. I ' He also referred to the site plan and photographs "which had been submitted with his petition for the appeal. i _ An extensive discussion ensued and Chairman Scott in- quired why the applicant had not applied for a building permit before proceeding uit`i the construction. Mr. Hamilton responded that at the time he acquired the materials for the relatively simple "bolt on" structure, he did not feel that it constituted a building or building addition which would require a permit. Commissioner Engdahl inquired what the applicant's re action would be if a neirnbor erected a similar • structure in a similar location, but perhaps included siding. The applicant said that he oersorally would probably have no o;lection, but he realized there would be those in the City that might. Mr. Hamilton sucgeste< that perhaps if the Zoning Ordinance provided soure definition and guidelines as to the type of canopy or carport structure that situation would not arise. The Secretary stated thair.research had been conducted into the Zoning Ordinances of other suburban communities ' as well as dictionary research into the definition of "carport: He stated that sore ordinances specifically defined „ carports" and "canopies" and some ordinances distinguish between the two. He stated that it was - common to find a definition based on type of use, whereby "carports" were defined as open -sided structures which provided protection to automobiles. The Secretary acknowledged that the Brooklyn Center Ordinance does not provide specific definition of ' carports or canopies, but the structure defined by its I < use as an accessory structure was comprehended by the Zoning Ordinance and was subject to the setback require- ments, for accessory structures. The Secretary stated that an essential question presented by the the appeal was whether this structure could be construed as a "canopy" within the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, thereby not considered an encroachment into minimum yard setbacks. He stated a more substantive issue was whether carports should be permitted to extend into yard setbacks in the same manner as awnings or canopies. He stated that, should the Commission find that such carport accessory structures could be allowed, then specific definition should be provided in the Zoning, + Ordinance not only as to the type of structure, but also as to the limits on the location of such a structure. The Secretary responded to several questions stating that } carports were now permitted in the City within: established minimum yard setback requirements, normally on,the sideyards and in the rear yards. He explained that it was important for the Commission to recoonize that ermi_tting_ such structures to extend into the ±rontyzrd would be a change in community land use standards. Further discussion ensued and Comnnissioner Engdahl stated the applicant's proposal had merit, but the Commission should be cautious in amending the Zoning Ordinance with ,• respect to the location of accessory structures and recognizing carports are distinguished, from traditional enclosed garages. He also stated that since it could be expected carports mould be desired by oth: homeowners with similar.circumstances, uniform standards were essential. Chairman Scott stated that the structure differed from traditional garages and accessory buildings °since it had no sides, that life styles had changed, and than the Zoning Ordinance should be flexible in recognizing ? those changes. She agreed that any change to the Ordinance should be very specific as to definitions and as to uniform standards, since without them, increased variance requests could be expected. Commissioner Pierce stated that he saw the merit of 'the carport structure as solution to an off- street parking problem where there was no practical way of adding covered parking space such as with a traditional enclosed garage. He stated that a definition of a t "carport" "would be quite explicit that it is a covered parking space. 1 Commissioner Book stated that he felt the proposal.had merit, but that he was concerned that the definition or standards for such a structure should be explicit as to minimum distance from the lot line.' { Chairman Scott stated that while the application in itself is not a variance request, it should be recog- nized that the applicant's situation is not unique, and that there are many homes with similar circum- stances throughout the City. Commissioner Pierce, agreed, stating that he could see • little grounds for granting a variance, but that he did see merit in exploring possible ordinance amend- ments providing a definition and standards for this ,type of structure. The Secretary explained that the applicant had been ' informed that the matter of securing a building permi would be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the appeal, and he suggested that draft 'language coul.' be prepared and brought back to the Commission at its, study meeting for further review.' Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Hamilton who offered additional remarks relative to the Zoning Ordinance definitions.of accessory.buildings and accessory uses! Table Application No. 77064 Following further discussion there was a motion by (Mr, and Mrs'. Gene Hamilton) Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Horan to; - table Application No. 77054 until the study meeting and to direct the staff to prepare draft ordinance ` amendments comprehending definitions of such accessory Structures and language which would provide for specific setback limitations. The motion passed unanimously. e 4 The next item of consideration was a discussion of Application No. 77064 Application Co. 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton to (Gene Hamilton) the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Secretary briefly reviewed the item stating it was considered and tabled at the ,tovember 10, 1977 meeting and 'in- volved an appal from the administrative ruling that E an erected carport attached to the front of the house extending 20 feet into the front yard setback cannot be permitted as an accessory structure. He commented • that the applicant contends that the structure repre- sents a canopy which, under the language of Section 35 -400 of he Zoning Ordinance, is allowed as an . encroachment into the yard setback. He reviewed the Inpsection Department position that the structure is not a, "canopy" in that context and that it is an - accessory carport structure which is subject to the ordinance setback requirements. He stated that the application had been tabled to allow preparation of draft ordinance changes and amendatory ordinance language. He reported that this had not been com- pleted and that further discusson of the issue by the Commission was merited. He recommended that action, not be taken on the application at this time so that the application could be used as a vehicle for bringing any proposed - ordinance amendments to the City Council. The Secretary briefly reviewed the several issues' involved in the appeal, including clarification of terms, and the possibility that the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to include definitions of the terms "canopy" and carport '.' He explained that the major issue was to determine whether or not a carport represented an accessory structure and to determine what type of limitations. and restrictions should -.be placed upon the location of a carport. He commented that the definition should place such restrictions upon .6 carport as to clearly differentiate it from / a garage accessory structure. The Secretary reviewed the results of researching other communitys' ordinances for definitions of carports, buildings, and accessory structures. He read several, of these definitions including one for "carport" as "a "space for housing and storage of motor vehicles enclosed on not more than two sides," and for garages, "attached or detached building for the purpose of storage of motor vehicles." Chairman Scott asked whether any definitions for canopies have been found in the ordiniances of other communities. Tito Secretary responded'tiat the Uniform Building Code does not specifically define canopy and that no ordinance had been found which clearly defined canopy althodgh frequently canopies were referred to in the ordinances. lie explained that, like awnings and marquees, canopies are projections which are not necessarily supported on the ground. fie continued that carports are akin to canopies, but they are defined by their use rihich is the storage of motor vehicles'. He emphasized that no ordinance researched exempted car- ports from minimum setback requirements. • Chairman Scott inquired as to the classification of patio coverings. The Secretary responded that the classification was dependent upon the design of the patio covering. Commissioner Pierce asked whether covered patios were accessory structures. The Secretary stated that covered patios are permitted encroachments into the year yard, but that a perranent freestanding structure used as a covered patio would be considered an accessory structure. He explained that the general rule for determining; permanency was arhether or not 03 structure could be readily dis- assembled, and whether it was anchored to the gtound. 12 -8 -71 f Commissioner Engdahl Arrives: Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 8:40 p.m. ' The Secretary stressed that if the Commission deter- mined that a carport would be allowed to encroach into the front setback, it must be clearly distinguish- ' able from a garage for purposes of precedent set, because the applicant's situation is not unique.and is, very comanon in the City. A discussion ensued relative to possible limitations on the amount of carport area as opposed to the amount of accessory structure area permitted on a single family lot. Commissioner Scott - stated that it was Conmission's concern that enclosed buildings not be permitted in the front setback. Coax missioner Pierce suagested that a carport be .required to be attached to the garage if it is located in the front yard. Chairman Scott recognized the applicant, Gene Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton stated that he felt that ordinance language could be written which would be restrictive: enough to clearly limit the type of structure permitted' as a carport. He suggested a definition and restrict- ive language. Following further disscussion, Commissioner Book sug- gested that each encroachment permitted under, Section 35 -400 should be defined in the ordinance. He also questioned the purpose of front yard setbacks. The Secretary responded that the 35 foot front setback policy decision made by the Village` Council in 1940's was primarily for three reasons: to provide light, air, and an unobstructed view; for aesthetic uniformity and reduction of noise and to provide for open space for traffic safety buffering and the possibility of land acquisition for street widening. Commissioner.Horan commented that a carport such as the one erected by the applicant would not affect any of those original criteria. He stated that while garages in the front setback are not desirable, car- ports in the setback are not undesirahle. Commissioner Pierce commented that the uniformity of the 35 foot front setback could be perceived as visually monoto- sous. Commissioner Horan agreed that it was possible that carports in the front yard could enhance ,a neigh boyhood aesthetically. Commrissioner Engdahl stated his concern that the location for carports be strictly controlled. Following furth - discussion, it was tile consensus • of the CoMaissic' to direct the staff to prepare definitions and amendatory ordinance language ' for N the Cocrmission's review at the next scheduled rnecting. 12 -8 -77 Canopies and Carports The Commission next reviewed the issues raised under Application No. 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton relative to the need for definitions in the ordinance for canopies, carports and awnings. The-Commission reviewed slides of canopies, carports and awnings. There was a general consensus that an `awning was a covering of a window or door attached to the building without vertical supports; that a- canopy was a cover -" ing usually of a walkway, attached to the building and supported from the ground by vertical support for the purpose of protecting a pedestrian; and that carports are similar coverings used to protect vehicles. A discussion ensued relative to the definition of a "carport." The Secretary suggested that perhaps there should be a double definition, one for carports within the ordinance setback requirements and one for -car- prots in front yards. He continued that the Commission had indicated last December that open -sided ,carports were acceptable in the front yard. He stated the , Building Official had indicated that there could be a policing problem with enforcing requirement for car - ports to be open- sided. Chairman Engdahl suggested language which would pro- hibit the violation of the front setback by any structure other than for the purpose of covering a i walkway. Commissioner Hawes agreed with Chairman Engdahl that "carports " should not be permitted to encroach in the tront setback. Commissioner Pierce commented that it was possible that a carport could be a substantial structure,for example, -an, extension - { of the house roof line. He stated that if carports { were to lowed as encroachments in the front yard, they should be clearly limited as to design and type of building materials. Commissioner Hawes agreed, stating that if the carport were to be en- closed on any side, the materials should be com- patible with the exterior of the dwelling. The ; Secretary stated that definitions and model ordinance amendments would be brought to the Planning „Commission for review at its next study meeting. Trash Disposal Containers The next item of consideration was review of the possibility of allowing trash disposal containers with rental advertising space to be placed on public and /or private property. The Secretary explained the nature of the containers and noted that there were i two considerations: 1) whether the containers' them - , . selves, exclusive of signery, could be permitted on public and private property; and, 2) whether the signery could be permitted. He stated that under the present ordinance, the containers would represent both off - premise advertising and freestanding signery. s I It was the consensus of the Commission that there j would be no objection to locating the containers on public and private property, exclusive of signery. ` A discussion ensued relative to similarity between the trash disposal containers with signs, and the bus benches which are licensed by the City. The Commis- sion also reviewed an agreement between the City of Fridley with the firm who owns the trash containers. The Commission agreed to hear a presentation made by I the firm at their next meeting. The Secretary stated a sample ordinance would be prepared using the �M1 Fridley agreement and the City bus bench ordinance . and would be presented for the Commission's review # at the next meeting. Application No 77064 The next item of consideration was Application No. (Gene Hamilton) 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton. The Secretary , explained that the item was an appeal from the ad- ministrative ruling by the Building Official that -:a carport accessory structure erected without a permit and attached to the front of the house extending 20 feet into the front yard setback at 6230 Lee Avenue North cannot be permitted. The Secretary continued that the application had originally been considered at the November 10, 1977 meeting and was subsequently considered on December 8 y and 15, 1977 and February 23, 1978. He explained the applicant's contention that the structure erected in the front yard was not a carport, but a "canopy" which is permitted, under Section 35 -400, to encroach into any yard. The Secretary showed slides of the applicant's property and the structure erected thereon. Next he showed slides which had been taken throughout the City of various canopies, awnings and carports. The Secretary reviewed the application, and stated it was not a variance application to permit the 'carport in the front yard, but was an appeal from the admini- strative ruling that under the current ordinance, the structure would not be permitted. He stated that the current ordinance does not define "carports" or specifically regulate their location. He added that carport is, however, defined, by use and is an accessory structure; and therefore, is subject to the:* setback requirements for accessory structures. e He continued that a carport is differenLiatcd from a canopy. He stated that ord i minces of other r,uni c ipa l - _ities had been researched, and offered composite definitions for canopies and carports: A canopy is an accessory roof -ifke structure rrh.ich covers a pedestrian walkway and is open on all sides. except where it is attached to a building; a carport is an accessory raof -like structure located over, or designed to cover, an off- street parking space which is enclosed on not more than two sides. Chairman Engdahl stated that the decision before the Planning Corr.,ission was whether the subject accessory structure could be permitted to encroach into the established front yard setback. The Secretary commented that the significance of the Planning Cca-nission's determination s a precedent for in*_erpretation of the Zoning Ordinances s standards and intent. Chairman Enedahl polled the Coc - : nissioners. Commissioner Pierce stated it was his opinion that the structure was not a canopy, but a carport, and as such violates the current setback star.cards. He 'stated he was not in favor of granting a variance because there was no uniqueness involved, and was in favor of upholding the Building Official's ruling. He further stated that he felt the Commission should discuss the possibility of amending the Ordinance to permit such a structure to encroach into the front yard. Commissioner Book commented that there was no uniqueness involved, that the front setback reouirement was 35 feet for any structure, that the an accessory structure, and that he was in favor of upholding the Building Official's ruling. He continued that he felt the issue of whether a carport could be located in the front setback should be further discussed. Commissioner Haves stated that he had a yard, house, and parking situation, but that, even though the appli— cant's neighbors might approve "of.his carport, it was • not permitted by the current ordinance and he was in favor of upholding the Building Official's ruling; 5 -II -78 Commissioner Theis questioned whether a canopy could extend to the property line. The Secretary responded that it could extend to the property line, but not to the street. Commissioner Theis stated he did not feel . the structure was a canopy, and felt the Building Official eras right in determining it was not permitted. under the Ordinance. Commissioner Malecki stated she agreed with the Building Officia that the use of the structure was a carport. She also commented that her oan situation was similar to the applicant's, but that the structure was not permitted under the Ordinance. Commissioner Jacobson stated she was in favor of upholding the Building Official's ruling. She stated that carports, canopies, and awnings should be defined in the Ordinance to clarify interpretation. She stated that she had no . objection to carports, but she did not feel they should be permitted to encroach into the front yard setback. Chairman Engdahl also stated he was in favor of upholding the Building Official's ruling, and that he was not in favor of amending the Ordinance to 'permit carports to encroach into the front yard. Chairman Enndahl recognize) the applicant. Tho appli- cant stated that he agreed with the Building Official's requirement for a building permit He explained that " he had researched the Ordinance and since there was no mention of carports in the Ordinance, he felt the structure could be defined as a canopy. He stated he understood the current Ordinance restrictions, but urged the Commission to reconsider amending the Ordinance. He stated that when he had come before the Commission in December, he detected some feeling among the Commissioners that there would be inerit in re- considering the Ordinance standards. He quoted from the minutes of the December 8 and 15 meetings to support his contention. The applicant reiterated his reasons for urging an Ordinance amendment. He stated that lifestyles had changed since the 1950's when the homes in his neighbor- hood had been built. He continued that in the 1950's single car families were common, but that today it was common to have more than one car,.and that particularly, in a climate such as Minnesota's, it was necessary to have protection for the cars. He stated that, after • using the carport for the winter, he was convinced there was a safety factor involved; that the car was f ro 9 ���r frost-free in the morning and theras no visibility . problem.: ' 4 He continued that, in addition to the safety factor, carports could enhance the aesthetics of a neighbor- hood by breaking up the "look - alike" appearance of.the houses on the street. He stated the structure was useful and that it was harmless. He noted that a petition had been submitted which was signed by all of his neighbors indicating their support of his appli- cation. He concluded by stating that the Ordinance could be amended to allow carports such as his to encroach in the front yard, but should clearly limit the size and location of carports to prevent any type of hazardous situation. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the possi- bility of revising the Ordinance. Chariman;Engdahl stated that he felt the issue was City -:ride in scope. Commissioner Hawes suggested that there was some type of "uniqueness in the applicant's situation in that he had a recessed driveway and the carport was perhaps not obtrusive. He pointed out, however, that the redinance'standz,rds have to apply to all similar properties in the City, and that the Commissfon should consider the impact of carports in other situations. 5 -11 -78 -The Secretary explained to the applicant the steps involved in amending an Ordinance. He stated that,, if ' it was the Commission's intent to recommend an Ordinance change, the applicant would be permitted to retain the structure pending the outcome of the , Ordinance amendment. Commissioner Book questioned whether the applicant could still seek a variance. The Secretary responded 'that he could, but that the Commission had indicated there was no uniqueness or hardship involved in the a lication and to w ' pp that it would be the applicant's responsibility to prove that a uniqueness and hardship existed. Motion to Recommend Denial Following further discussion there was a motion by of Application No. ,77064 Commission Hawes seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to (Gene Hamilton) recommend denial of Application No. 77064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton and to uphold the Building Official's ruling that a carport accessory structure erected with- in the front yard setback cannot be permitted. Co:gnissioner Book stated the rompission Shou }r; ar }drir.;s the issue of amending the Crd+n:+nce to permit carports in the front yard setback. Chairman Engdahl ; polird the Coiaissioners. Commissioner Theis stater, he was in'favo of denying the appeal. He stated that carports in the front yard setback perhaps could be allowed by special permit only %here it was determined by the City to be the only possibility for the homeowner. Commissioner Hawes was in favor of denying the appeal and stated he did not recommend amending' the Ordinance. �, a s e was in favor,of.�.mundin 9 d h Bo Book _tote Commission the Ordinance. Commissioner Pierce stated he was in favor of denying the appeal, but felt that the issue of carports in the front yard warranted further careful review. favored don in the appeal ' nor f•�alec�ci also C 0!IFi115 S 10 Y � and agreed with Commissioner Theis that perhaps s- carports 9 . in the `rout yard could be allowed only by special -perms under specific carefully defined circumstances. Commissioner Jacobson was in favor of denying the appeal and stated that she was.not in favor amending the Ordinance. Chairman Engdahl agreed, stating he, too, was opposed to amending the Ordinance. The Secretary stated the Commission could act on the appeal and direct the staff to prepare ordinance language to be revi.,­ d at the study session regarding the encroachment of carports into the front yard. , Vote on Application; Chairman Engdahl stated he v:as ready for a vote on No. 77064 the appeal matter. feting in favor:, Chairman (Gene Hamilton) Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes, and Pierce. Voting against: Commissioner Book. Not voting: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. Action Directing Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Draft Ordinance Book to direct the ste.fI to prepare amendatory ordi- Arrendments nance language as discussed for review at the study meeting. The motion passed'unanlinausly. 5 -11 -78 mL y. 13 p.m. - - i The next item of business was consideration of draft Draft Ordinance Amendment ordinance amendments to Chapter 35 relative to carports to Chapter 35 Relative to and canopies (see attached). The Secretary explained Carports and Canopies ` I that the draft ordinance amendment contained three sections: Section l was an amendment to Section 35 -310 (1) (b) (3) and '35 -311 (1) (b) (3) to include the square footage of a carport(s) with square footage of accessory buildings for a maximum square footage of accessory structures allowed; Section 2 would amend Section 35 -400 (8) to permit carports as an encroachment p c ment in the front yards on one and two family dwellings, and establish the standards for carports in front yards; Section 3 would amend Section 35 -900 to include definitions of canopy and carport. He stated that a canopy'is defined as "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) ". Carport is defined as "an accessory roof -like structure, either attached to or detached from a permitted building, enclosed on not more than two sides except as otherwise provided by this ordinance; which is designed to provide cover for approved off- street vehicle parking or vehicle storage space." A discussion ensued .relative to the definition for carport. Chairman Engdahl stated that he preferred to define carport as being "enclosed on two sides or less. I_ The Secretary pointed out that such a definition would imply that a carport must be enclosed whereas the I recommended language does not imply that it must be enclosed. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the side where the carport was attached to the'structure would be considered an enclosed side. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. A discussion ensued relative to Section 2 of the proposed amendment. The Secretary explained that the suggested 200 sq. ft. standard was based on the 10 x 20 typical parking space. He stated that the suggested 15 foot standard is established elsewhere in the ordinance as the maximum height of an accessory building. A discussion ensued relative to the design of carports in the front yard and the location of the "roof line" r _ of a house. Chairman Engdahl recognized Will Dahn, the Building Official, who stated that the roof line was generally construed to be the roof ridge. Commissioner t Pierce noted that this meant that a ie'L- roofed carport could extend higher than the eavesline. It was the consensus of the Commission that such 'a situation' - would not be aesthetic. I 5- 25 -78_ - -- — — . i . I l t The Building Official drew diagrams of possible car- ports in the front yard, including flat- roofed carport - and carports which were an extension of an existing roof line. Commissioner Hawes suggested that there could be different height standards for the different -types of carports. Commissioner Pierce suggested that the outer dimensions of a carport :should not extend beyond the silhouette of the existing house. The -i Secretary commented that the language could be amended to provide for carports not exceeding 15 feet in height and, if the carport extended higher than the eavesline, it must conform with the existing roof line. Commission Pierce raised the point that the proposed ordinance amendment might have consequences the_Cos► mission had not considered, such as influencing, home- owners to remodel attached garages to family rooms and add carports in the front yard. Following further discussion relative to Section 2, Chairman Engdahl polled the Commission. Commissioner Hawes stated he was not in favor of Section 2. Com- missioner Book stated he was in favor of the proposed Section. Commissioner Pierce stated that, while he was in favor of amending the ordinance, he had some reservations and felt the matter deserved; thorough review of front yard setback standards in general. Commissioner Theis stated he was in favor of the amend- ment and felt the language should address the aesthetics of a proposed carport. Commissioner Malecki stated she was against the amendment and .favored al- lowing carports in the front yard only by a special use permit. Chairman Engdahl stated, he, too, was against the amendment because he felt that carports in the front yard infringed upon the ;rights of the neighboring property owners. The Secretary explained that, if carports were to be !j permitted as special uses, they would be permitted uses subject to certain conditions. He continued that a special use permit would have to be granted without discrimination to anyone who met the conditions. He said-perhaps the standard for a special use permit could be that the property owner had no other way of providing covered parking space within the ordinance standards. He stated.that the variance approach was not feasible since it would generally not be possible to establish uniqueness and hardship. .r. In further discussion, the Building Official pointed out that, if carports were permitted in the front yard, o, the Commission could expect to review variance re- quests to enclose the carport. He stated that once precedent had been set for allowing a structure in the front yard, it could be very difficult to refuse a- variance to enclose the structure. A discussion en- sued relative to this possibility, and Commissioner Pierce stated that as a part of the carport issue, all possibilities of expansion into the front yard should be considered. Commissioner Theis inquired as to the purpose of the 35 ft. front setback. The Secretary explained that it was an original zoning standard in Brooklyn Center, as well as many other communities, and that its purpose was to provide for aesthetics, uniformity, open space for light, air, view and safety, and to provide space for off- street parking. Commissioner Theis commented that a carport in the front yard would seem to _ primarily affect one of these, uniformity. 5 5 -25 -78 I-A Commissioner Book questioned whether the amendments in Section I and 3 were necessary if Section 2 was not approved. The Secretary responded that those amendments were deemed appropriate for clarification j of the ordinance. A discussion followed relative to existing ordinance language which established the size and number of permitted accessory structures. The Secretary stated that the purpose of the section was to limit the area of accessory structures on a lot so that the total ground coverage of accessory structures does not exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. The Secretary explained that the phrase, in the definition of carport in Section 3, "except as otherwise provided by this ordinance," was not needed if Section 2 were not adopted. Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Recommend Approval of Malecki to recommend approval of Sections l and 3 of Sections 1 and 3 of an An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Ordinance Amending Chapter Relative to Canopies and Carports, deleting the phrase, 35 of the City Ordinances "except as otherwise provided by this Ordinance" from Relative to Canopies and the definition of a carport. The motion passed Carports unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Motion Not to Recommend Malecki not to recommend adoption of Section 2 of an Section 2 of Ordinance "Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City` Ordinances Amending Chapter 35 of the Relative to Canopies and Carports" on the basis that City Ordinances Relative to neither carports nor any building should be allowed Canopies and Carports to encroach into the established front yard setback. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Engdahl and Hawes. Voting against: Commissioners Book and Theis. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce, who stated that, while he thought there was merit in the proposed amend- ment, he did not feel that enough consideration' had been given to all of the consequences of revising an estab lished ordinance standard. The motion passed. In other business, the Commission briefly reviewed the Other Business - status of ordinance amendment relative to licensing v commercial trash receptacles with signery. The matter was deferred until the next meeting. c Also in other business, the Commission briefly reviewed the status of the property located at approximately 68th Avenue and Lee Avenue extended. The Secretary stated that the property was.zoned C -2, but because of the existing uses in the area, including a post office and the NSP property, the owner of the vacant property.had indicated difficulty in developing the property with a commercial use. He continued that the owner proposed a type of condominium wholesale distribution, development for the property. He explained that.►he permitted uses 'in the C -2 (Commercial zone could be amended to include some I -1 (Industrial Park) uses such as wholesale ' distribution. He stated the owner had also indicated a willingness to apply to rezone the property to 'I -1 (Industrial Park). The Commission reviewed photographs of condominium ware- houses located elsewhere in the Metropolitan Area, and a brief discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl stated the Commission could review the proposal further, but that rezoning the land was not appropriate. The Secretary stated that the City Council had authorized Planning Consultant hiring Bather, Ringr•ose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, and Gardner as Planning Consultant for Comprehensive Planning and. ' Critical Area Planning, He continued that a meeting would be set up in the near future between the Consultant and the Planning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Adjournment Book to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. + The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m: I Chairman l -� 5 -25 -78 -6- The Secretary commented on another matter.regarding the Reconsider Recommended . proposed amendments to.Chapter 35 relative to carports and Ordinance Amendments canopies. He stated that this matter was related to Appli- Regarding Canopies and cation No. 77064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton and that, Carports while the Commission on May 25 had forwarded a recommended amendment to the City Council at its June.S, 1978 meeting, f Mr. Hamilton had indicated to the staff that he felt he should have been notified of the Commission meeting so that he could have participated in the discussion. The Secretary stated that Mr. Hamilton was not so notified i because his application was not considered at that meeting. He commented, however, if the Commission felt there would be merit in reconsidering the draft ordinance-amendment Mr. 1_ and receiving further input from M m . Ha milto n on the meeting and resche at the next _ matter, it could be resche 9 Mr. Hamilton would be so, notified. I Chairman Engdahi stated that the Commission had acted appropriately and that there was no need to reconsider the matter. He stated that if the Commission wished to receive further input from the applicant, certain ground rules should be established such as a limitation of the time for total discussion and specifically as to receiving input that had not already been placed on the record by Mr. Hamilton. Following a brief discussion it was the'cdnsensus'of the ` Commission to place the matter of proposed amendment to i Chapter 35 regarding canopies and carports on the next j agenda as a discussion item, and to direct the Secretary to notify Mr. Hamilton of that meeting and of the limit - ation of time that would be devoted to such a discussion. The Secretary was also directed to inform Mr. Hamilton that the Commission would welcome from him information which had not peen presented previously, noting that extensive time and discussion had occurred regarding the matter during hearing on Application No. 77064 e t � . 4 r _ :�. V J . ac- .:r r i j i The next item of business was a reconsideration of the -Oth draft language amending the Zoning Ordinance with re- Other Business: spect to canopies and carports. The Secretary briefly Canopies and Carports 6 -22 -18 r a= 4 I 1 { j reviewed the matter. He stated that the Commission had considered draft ordinance language at the May 25, 1978 meeting which Consisted of three sections: ` 1) which included carports in the total amount of accessory structure permitted, 2) which described the use of carports and permitted its encroachment into front yards, and 3) which included definitions of carports and canopies. He continued that the Commission had recommended an ordinance to the City Council which consisted of Sections 1 and 3 of the draft, and did not permit the encroachment of carports into front yards. He stated that the matter was related to Appli cation No. 77054 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton, but that Mr. Hamilton did not receive a'notice of the May 25, 1978 meeting, since his application was not on the agenda, and, therefore, did not participate in the discussion of the recommended amendment. He stated that Mr. Hamilton had re- ceived a notice of tonight's meeting and was present and wished to make a presentation to the Commission concerning the matter. Chairman Engdahl stated that the Commission would. receive additional information which had not been heard before or which Mr. Hamil felt had not been considered by the present Commissioners. It was the consensus of the Commission to limit Mr. I� Hamilton's presentation to 10 mi nutes. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Gene Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton stated that in reading the minutes of the May 25, 1978 meeting, it had appeared to him that two of the Commission's concerns- with permitting carports in the front yard had been with aesthetics and with the precedence for al- lowing additional structures in the front yard. Mr. Hamilton showed slides of his carport from a i ections. He th several p roceeded to show dr seve p slides of other carports in the area which ap- patently met ordinance setback requirements and which he stated were less aesthetic than his carport. He asked the Commission what the harm would be of allowing restricted carports in the front yard, and commented the restrictions in Section 2 of the draft amendment were very clear and specific. Chairman Engdahl stated that en- croachment of the 35 ft. front setback was a major zoning matter. Mr. Hamilton responded that each - individual situation could be reviewed by the Planning Commission, as-in the case of special uses. The Secretary commented that the Commission had not reviewed the matter as special use, and that if the ordinance were amended to permit carports in the front yard, as the rejected draft Section 2 had comprehended, every single - family and two- family homeowner would be permitted a carport in the front yard without review by the Planning Commission. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners. Com- missioner Theis stated that he was not necessarily • .opposed to modifying the 35 ft. setback standard, and that he could see aloowing carports in the 4 p_ front yard under a special use permit which would € require review of the aesthetics of the carport. Mr. Hamilton proceeded to show slides of other un- aesthetic front yard situations, such as large re- creational vehicles. He stated he did not feel his carport was as unasesthetic as some of the re- creational vehicles he had seen parked in front yards for long periods of time. 6 -22 -78 Chairman Engdahl agreed that there were many unsightly conditions in front yards, but stated that the issue at hand was whether or not to permit carport struc- ture to encroach into the front yard setback. Mr. Hamilton pointed out that his carport ,has little • or no effect on the aesthetics of his neighborhood. He added that the second section under the proposed- ordinance amendment clearly spelled out what would be permitted in the front yard and would allow a functional structure such as his own. Chairman Engdahl continued his poll of the Commissioners. Commissioner Hawes stated that his feeling had not changed on the subject. He agreed that Mr.'Hamilton's carport was not displeasing, but that other structures meeting the criteria in Section 2 of the proposed amendment could be eye - sores. He stated there was a a need to draw the line on front yard encroachments and that 35 ft. was the established standard. Commissioner Pierce stated he sympathized with the applicant and his situation. He stated that he did not vote for or against the ordinance amendment because he felt the issue was a city -wide issue and warranted further consideration. He stated the special use permit route was not workable because it would amount to the Planning Commission making determinations of what was and what was not aesthetically pleasing. Commission Jacobson stated that with the landscaping and Mr. Hamilton's particular situation, she felt i that his carport did look nice, but that there are j other situations in the City where carports meeting 9 the proposed standards would be unaesthetic. She stated she did not agree with changing -the sideyard setback standards several years ago and did not favor changing - the 35 ft. front yard setback now. Commissioner Malecki stated that she could see permit - ting carports in the front yards as a special use where that was shown to be the only practical alternative for the homeowner. She continued that the amendment was not for a speciai use permit and she did not support the draft amendment permitting carports in the front yard. Mr. Hamilton inquired why the ordinance could not be amended to permit carports in the front yard as a special use. Chairman - Engdahl responded that the Pianning Commission was not qualified to make the q aesthetic judgments which would be involved. He con- tinued that he did not favor permitting carports to encroach into the front yard and he did not favor violating the 35 ft. standard. Mr. Hamilton commented that the Commission was looking at the issue from a city -wide viewpoint and inquired what routes were open to him as an individual in order to retain his carport. The Secretary responded that Mr. Hamilton could seek a variance in order to retain his carport. He ex- plained that it would be incumbent upon the applicant ' to prove that a hardship exists per ordinance standards, and that the uniqueness standard was important to establish, avoiding an undesirable precedent. He explained that the special use permit route had not been considered by the Pianning Commission because special uses are permitted uses which must meet certain conditions and standards due to their "special" character. He continued that, in the case of permitting carports as special uses, the standards would amount to aesthetic criteria and would be very difficult to apply. 6 -22 -78 12- M The Secretary continued that Mr. Hamilton had made an appeal from an administrative ruling of which the Planning Commission had recommended denial, and the Commission felt that the issues raised during the appeal warranted further research and consideration, ' and that as a result of these considerations, the Commission was now recommending an ordinance amendment to the City Council. He emphasized that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council and that the City Council had yet to hear both the appeal and the ordinance amendment, and would make final decisions in both matters. Chairman Engdahl asked for a motion to either confirm or to alter the previous action of recommending ordi nance amendments relative to canopies and carport to - the City Council. Motion to Confirm Previous Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Action Recommending an Jacobson to confirm previous action recommending an Ordinance Amendment to ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances i Chapter 35 Relative to relative to canopies and carports. Voting in favor Canopies and Carports Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, anc Hawes. Voting against: Commissioner Theis Not voting: Commissioner Pierce who stated the matter merited further review. The motion passed. i Mr. Hamilton stated that the Commission had adhered strictly to the Zoning Ordinance standards of a 35 ft. 3 front yard setback, but had not adhered so strictly to Section 35 -251 which sets the time frame in which appeals should be acted on. He quoted the ordinance section. Mr. Hamilton charged that he had not been afforded due process since his application had been taken in f until May a differ- not upon a November and no p Y • _ ent Commission from that which had originally heard his application. The Secretary responded that the application had been continued with Mr. Hamilton's concurrence in order to allow for further - research on the matter of allowing structures in the front yard. He stated that a letter had been sent to Mr. Hamilton in October explaining that his structure, which is in violation of the ordinance and building codes would be permitted to remain until the appeal matter had been acted upon. He stated Mr. Hamilton had been permitted to retain the carport over the winter, and that he had been d afforded ample due process. 3 He noted that the applicant had been present whenever his petition was discussed,: and that he had encouraged the Commission to consider ordinance amendments. He recalled no prior objection to the duration of the ' Commission's deliberations on the matter. In further discussion the Secretary recounted that the applicant had inferred in a telephone conversatior that, whereas, he had the votes of the previous Com- mission in his pocket, he was disturbed that the 1978 Commission was not as favorable to his situation. Mr. Hamilton stated he had not said that he had the former _ Commission "in his pocket" and wished to go on record as'objecting to being misquoted. Chairman Engdahl stated that the appeal matter and the ordinance amendment would be ,considered by the • City Council at the same meeting and that Mr. Hamilton would receive notice of that meeting. -13 6 -22 -78 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 77064 (GENE HAMILTON) ! The City Manager introduced the next item of business, that of Planning Commission Application No. 77064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton, i The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review of Planning Commission. Application No. 77064 which comprehends an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding the structural addition at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that this item had been considered by the Planning Commission at its November 10, December 8, December 15, 1977 and February 23 and May 11, 1978 meetings., The appeal from the administrative ruling regarding the structural addition at 6230 Lee Avenue North had been denied by the Planning Commission at its May 11, 1978 meeting. The Commission had asked the staff to research amending the present City_ Ordinance regarding carports and canopies— The Planning Commission had considered staff recommendations on an ordinance change and recommended the amended ordinance as included in this meeting's agenda packet, It was felt that an ordinance change was necessary because the current ordinance does not define canopy as so constructed by Mr. Hamilton. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant, Mr. Gene Hamilton, Mr. Hamilton explained he appealed the administrative ruling because the Zoning Ordinance did not speak to the type of structure that he built. In his estimation, the definition which" most clearly applies is canopy. Mr. Hamilton indicated there will be a car parked in front of his house regardless of whether or not the canopy is allowed and that the canopy is a safety feature. The problem of windows • frosting over and the need to scrape frost and snow` from the windows is minimized as a result of the canopy. Mr. Hamilton further explained he. does own two cars and the two cars are operated daily. It is impossible to construct a detached garage in the back of his property because of the position of the house and the layout of the property. Mr. Hamilton explained he wanted to continue to live in Brooklyn Center rather than moving to another home with a two car garage Mr. Hamilton had met with 14 of the neighboring property owners and discussed his canopy structure with them. None of the 14 neighbors surveyed by Mr. Hamilton objected to the canopy. Mr. Hamilton explained that an amendment proposed earlier in Planning Commission discussions would allow the canopy like structure which he had built. He asked that that earlier suggestion be reconsidered. 'Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the purpose of front yard setbacks. The Director of Planning and Inspection replied a basic purpose was uniformity. The City Attorney concurred that front yard uniformity was the basic reason" for setbacks and that setbacks had grown up as an adjunct to zoning-. In addition,_ street maintenance is facilitated by setbacks, and setbacks allow people who live in the City to have access to light, air and view. The City Attorney further explained that the City has a clearly established right to have and to determine the size of setbacks The City Manager explained that setback size often allows for two cars to be parked end -to -end thus alleviating on- street parking. • Additionally, the setback allows for green space which lessens the street noise. 7 -24 -78 -8- EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAiVNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION AUGUST 24, 1978, APPLICATION NO. 78055 (Meadow Corporation) The next item of consideration was Application 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. He 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. 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. A brief discussion ensued relative to the discussion of Outlots considered pre- viously by the Commission, and the possibility of including as_a portion 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 stipulation 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 i providing the necessary Homeowner Association.docunents at the time of sale that met with the City's approval 8 -24 -78 -1- f 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 applicationwitb 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. 7_8055 ,(Meadow Corporation) fo lowing further discussion, there was a motion 5 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. 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 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. 8 -24 -78 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Study Meeting August 24, 1978 1. Call to Order: 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: August 10, 1978 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these ri matters. 5... Independence Ten 78015 Preliminary Plat approval for the property at 7240 Brooklyn Boulevard (Item tabled by the Planning Commission on April 6 and 27, 1978). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 6. Josephine Bovy 78047 Variance from Section 35 -400 to permit house .addition with approximate 10 ft. encroachment into side yard at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. .. PLAflNLNG COMAIISSION 7. Brookdale Car Wash 78051 Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan Approval for a canopy addition to the.Brookdale Car Wash at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard, 8. Meadow Corporation 78055 Preliminary Plat approval for "The Ponds" Plat 7 located in the vicinity of 73rd and Unity Avenues North. 9. B & G Realty Inc: 78056 Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan approval for a 100 unit motel to be located adjacent to and westerly of the recently approved Ember's site on James Circle, south of Freeway Boulevard. 10. Discussion Items: a Draft Ordinance Regarding Outlots b Site and Building Plan REviews c) R. L. Johnson Rezoning Request (Application No. 78032) • 11. Other Business 12. Adjournment t Planning Commission Irfformation Sheet Application No. 78015 Applicant: Independence Ten Location: 7240 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval This application is a result of a condition of approval of Application No. 77026 which rezoned a..triangular piece of ro erty located northerly of Shingle Creek ' P P and easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard, from Rl to Cl last year.. The northerly boundary of the property is the municipal city limits between the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. The southeasterly property line of this property was originally established according,to the center line of Shingle - Creek before the Creek was re- aligned. This meandering boundary line is also the northwest boundary line of Wingard Addition which consists of several lots, and one of the purposes of the replatting is to clarify the boundary situation since the present Creel: is to the northwest of that line. The" Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 6, 1978 and tabled the matter to allow the staff to meet with affected property owners to resolve the problem with the southeasterly boundary. The Commission, on April 27, 1978, again reviewed the preliminary plat, and the City Engineer reported on a meeting held with the affected property owners. Three of the four property owners in the Wingard Addition, affected by the realignment of the Creek, were interested in participating in a replatting of the area, and the fourth property owner is satisfied with the survey he already has. The affected property owners have agreed to share the extra costs of the replatting, and the Commission then tabled this application to allow the applicant time to prepare preliminary plat. • The applicant has recently submitted the requested new preliminary plat, and the City_Engineerw will be prepared to review the plat in more detail. One consideration raised during the review of this plat is the establishment of an appropriate easement along the Creek for future uses such as, a trailway or bikeway. A public hearing has been held on this plat at the Commission's April 6, 1978 meeting. Informational notices have been sent to the Minnesota Highway Department, the Osseo School District, and the City of Brooklyn Parka Approval would be subject to at least 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. 8 -24 -78 1 R£GE.NT"� Rv�.�rcc� Z Z 'E A , rcN '�G: Z ,�"��✓4 f�� [ �° - ` ma y --� 3s mot` 4 NO Ln l,i� ` Application No. 78047 Applicant: Josephine Bovy Location: 5946 Colfax Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant is seeking a variance from the side yard setback requirement contained in Section 35 -400 to build an approximate 10'.x 16' enclosed entryway at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. The addition would encroach approximately 10 ft. into the 25 ft. side corner setback required for corner lots. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) explaining her request and out - lining her justification for the variance. Briefly, she notes that a patio door in the side yard of her split entry home has, in essence, become the main entrance. She points out that weather conditions often make this entryway hazardous, and she contends that a hardshi p would exist if she was not permitted to construct the en- ex e p closed entryway. She also adds that such construction would: I. Make this main entrance safe for entrance and access during all kinds of weather; 2. Provide a barrier against the elements that would make the house more energy efficient; 3. Afford privacy during the evening hours of darkness from those passing by on the street. This item was tabled by the Commission on August 10, 1978, and the staff was directed to further research the matter of a 1976 Zoning Ordinance amendment to 5 -4 2 that family dwelling and ermitted accessory Section 3 00 t t al lows a single l e f 1 O 9 Y 9 p Y 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. A map developed at the time this matter' was being researched was also presented to the Commission showing the number and location of the lots affected by the amendment. The staff was further requested to determine the number of substandard corner lots created after December 19, 1957. There are approximately 47 substandard corner lots of record after this 1957 date, including the Bovy property. We were also requested to further research the intent of the 1976 Zoning Ordinance.amendment. i ordinance language Research indicates that the December 19 1957 date used in the e o , 9 9 had to do with subdivision requirements establishing 90 ft. wide corner lots as q 9 the standard. Also, the side corner yard minimum setback requirement was changed from 15 ft. to 25 ft. around that time. - The rational 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. It also seems clear that the amendment was not intended to address all substandard corner lots. To recommend approval of this variance would, in essence, be saying that the !Comis- sion would be prepared to recommend a possible 46 more side corner lot variances in the future. Following the staff research, it is still felt, as was noted at the August 10, 1978 meeting, that the applicant does not meet the standards for variances contained in Section 35 -400 (2) (attached). 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 the parcel. 8 -24 -78 1 Application No. 78047 Page 2 • There are some options available to the applicant, other than her proposal for an enclosed entryway in the side yard. One would be to construct a sidewalk leading from the driveway area to the front entrance of the home to discourage use of the side entry. Also it is my understanding that there is a door leading from the lower level of the home to the inside of the garage, in that it might be possible to design this area to provide access to the home. The Commission also requested draft ordinance language that might address - the applicant's problem. A draft ordinance eliminating the December 19, 1957 date contained in the present ordinance has been developed and is attached. In essence, 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. This amendment should be thoroughly reviewed and discussed in light of its ramifications. Generally, setback regulations have been established to, among other things, keep dwellings farther from dust, noise and fumes of the street; to add to the attract- iveness and comfort of a residential district; create a better home environment; reduce fire hazards ;. prevent buildings from cutting off light and air from adjacent dwellings; and provide visibility especially in the area of street corners. The question really becomes whether or not 25 ft. 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. e 8 -24 -78 Suggested Draft of Letter: - From: Mrs. Josephine Bovy 5946 Colfax Ave. North Brooklyn Center, Minn. To: Mr. Ron Marren, Director of Planning & Inspection City. Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn- 55430 Subject: Request for Building Permit to build an enclosure on the North Side of my residence, or if such permit cannot be granted, either consideration of a variance or ordinance change to permit such construction. I am requesting that permission be given to build a 10' x 16' enclosure, as per the attached drawing. The Patio door that leads onto the deck and stairs on the North Side of the House is actually the main entrance to the home. The front door provides the other main entrance and ;exit, but due to its distance from the street it faces Colfax Ave-, it 13 not a practical access to the house. The entrance to the patio door, which faces 59th Av ..North, leads right down to the driveway, and it is very easy to park tie car in my own •drive and use this entrance for entering, carrying Ln groceries and other items— It is also the best access for those visiting, and hile there is another access through the garage) in case of emergency, th garage access and entrance is not the fastest way in or out, as the g rage entrance winds up under the kitchen and only accessible from the liv g rooms area. The patio door access is the only way into the kitc en, and as stated before the way in which I carry in the groceries from shop.ing. Being that this is the main access, it has caused p oblems due to ice . that can accumulate during the winter and during th rains, it also becomes very slippery• Last year a visitor of mine broke his foot as a res It of the slippery conditions. To summarize, the need that I have for this additio is as follows I. To make this main entrance safe for entrance and access during all kinds of weather. 2. To provide a barrier against the elements that would make the house more energy efficient. • 3. To afford privacy during the evening and hours of darkness from those passing by the street. Page 2 J Should the present ordinances, as you have noted to me about the platting requirements of a certain date not permit the issuance of the building permit, I would renew my request to apply for a variance, or if a core appropriate method would be a change to the ordiance in question, that would be satisfactory with me, also. Whatever, method it takes to allow me to proceed the quickest would be the best, as the longer I wait, the more the costs go up, and it is my sincere desire to accomplish the building of this enclosure before The Fall weather sets in. I would appreciate any assistance that you can give me in this matter, as I fully do not understand the process of getting this matter resolved by having to appear before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Because of the change of City Ordinances as was mentioned to me, I would be denied to do what I feel is a reasonable project that will improve my hone for me to live in, when someone else might be granted such permission if they are not subject to the Ordinance change in question. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call upon me. My hone phone number is 560j4767• My phone number at work is 542 Yours Truly, Section 35 -240 (cont'd) 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under con - sideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that' all of the following qualifications are. met: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topo- graphical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out, (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based_ are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land_ or improvements in the neighborhood in which the Parcel of land is located. A DRAFT OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO CORNER SIDEYARD SETBACKS Section 1. Section 35 -400 (2) of the City Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Where no more than 3 interior lots have frontage on a "cross street," and where the corner lots are developed so that one side yard of each " setback 0 o f r r front and set k of the c corner lot aces the "cross street," the y interior lots may conform to the side yard setbacks of the corner primary structures. Setbacks along major thoroughfares as r in Section 35 -900 shall in no event be less than 50 feet, measured from the street right -of -way line. A single family dwelling and permitted accessory structures may be constructed to within fifteen (15) feet 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. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after thirty (30) days following legal publication. 9 9 P m� r (s car) lie 0 () , 90.93 73.53 • 74,s3 7�•Ss CA kA D u: pa r t FJv r, v 7S.6i 75.3 7S 7�,2 7s 75 8J. 15 19 � 75.24 7S• t s7• 7s c© r) tiE , ��Q 8a,sF 9/•7s J4G Lh ao )y .41 7 &,w3 k 3 $ �..w..: , ^7 y7 r a n N /:7v nv {p 11 32 77.9(, 77 Sy. 7:5 Sy �j8�3G 75•�k 4 � � '�� G -6 77 I v p , m, f° C*IRALD T COTNL RAYMOND A PRASCH .�,�.. „t LOT SURVEYS CO ,rr i REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA • LICENSED BY ORDINANCE OF CITY OT MINNEAPOLIS 6917 Mah., Acv. N. ".13•wr22 t t ^ t �+ �} e : t'L1 'a: of t•.4 , irk f'; _'.Y i' , • ":A . r iG tt1:bPI r� �£r if •....�•,, ,,a• A ;.�, LAWR. IXE J . 1•F.:'US Invoice # 2U-:I 1 F.E. 12 -1 { i� G Lcxlctes :roa Starle 1" - 3C` �T I F - - - - - !� f� NL t i T . C i -5 4 `4 - , v, All R 4 V. t - 1 , t Tract C Registered Lvtnd Survey No. 1271v Files of the Registrar of Titles in •ud for Hennepin County, 31lunesetse subject to oPSements • of record, if Fny. / � Wv hereby ;Prt;fy that this .s a true and cdirect represent&• j''� 1 !r� a sy �.! ,! ,� / �? t;on of i survey of the boundaries of the above described. S1F�feCf -- 1; - - -- `� -�` -- <. — - . - !and end the location of ell bu#ldings and visible encroach IZ SURVEYS CON11'-14Y _rents, it any from 4r on said land u rayed by .,s rh -% c$Lh !ay of .^,+ieiLsBtLM►Ir+ 19� , Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78051 • Applicant: Brookdale Car Wash (Stephen Graham) Location: 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use, Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant proposes to add two canopy additions along the west side of the existing Brookdale Car Wash located at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard. The purpose of the canopies is to provide screening from the sun and the elements for special wax jobs performed by the applicant. Each canopy would be attached to the exist- ing building and cover approximately 38 ft. where it is attached to the building and 'extend approximately 14 ft. outward and tapered down to approximately 13 ft. at the outermost edge. The height of the canopy will be 8 ft. at the outermost edge and 11 ft. where it attaches to the building. The canopy will have a canvas covering and be supported by structural grade aluminum columns. The applicant has submitted samples of the materials to be utilized. Gasoline service stations and auto washes are special uses in the C2 District, and,.therefore, a special use permit is also being requested in conjunction with this addition. A copy of the standards for special permits contained in Section 35 -220 of the City Ordinances is attached with the agenda. It is felt that the applicant meets these standards. It should also be pointed out that the appli- cant has undertaken many site improvements with respect to landscaping and plant- ings-without any urging by the City. It is felt that these improvements have substantially enhanced the area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. The applicant's plans seem to be in order and approval would be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. • 8 -24 -78 z:ita naaras for zjpecial - u—,e rcrmrr- - ` A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use Will • promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public.health, safety, morals,, or. comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially- diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. - (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede-the normal and t 'n property for us n ' m r vem nt of surrounding roe e r - orderly development and i_ p o e - - - ,. _ .g_P p _ Y s - ._ ... --- permitted in the district,_ _ _ (d) Adequate measures have been or will be- taken to provide ingress, _ _ egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. -- (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli- cable regulations. of the district in which it is located. , 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may. recommend and the City Council may - impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment-, location, construction, - mainterance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the pro- tection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ordinance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted_, the :City Council - may require such* evidence and guarantees as it may . deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in .connection therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be. resubmitted for a period of twelve (1,2)_ months from the date of . . the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which' he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubr►iission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and 'Extension of S pecial Use Permits . When a special use-permii has been issued pursuant the provisions of _ this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or . • successor commences work upon the subject property within one year of the date the special u-sc permit i's granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitt -ing to the Secretary of fiie Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of Cl t; nn fl l ►� ►d ai b rc l WapP Nor +F,po fi Pot U �. f r �• -7 �5 i � ca Li e 6 r • • X, �C�w1 5 _ 4p Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78055 Applicant: Meadow Corporation Location: "The Ponds" Planned Residential Development (approximately 73rd and Unity Avenues North Request: Preliminary Plat Approval On June 5, the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 78029 consisting of site and building plans for the third development phase of "The Ponds" Planned Residential Development. 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. This development consists roughly known as Phases 7 and 8 on the master plan and consists of 112 rental units. The applicant is proposing replatting of this area so that it would be possible to sell these units individually at some point in time with these units being later incorporated into "The Ponds" Homeowners Association. The Engineering Department has reviewed the plat and will be prepared to comment at Thursday evening's meeting. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Approval would be subject to at least 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. 8 -24 -78 � t I I • * P . B ROOKLYN l 1 MM owl MM • ��...1� a .,� MIM 1;•�,��• _111. .�...1 .... �.•. M 1M ... •� • 11 �... =MW ■ 10 ■o'1 U.S.- .. OFFICE �,1 .... �. ...� HtM�oi milli Id low p 11 1� 111; ��1/ 11.1 ®�1���I�����r��r�r�► r- Y Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78056 Applicant: B & G Realty, Inc. (Budgetel) Location: Tract A of Earle Brown Commercial and Industrial Park (Cot 1, Block 3, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Plat 2) Request; Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks special use permit and site and building plan approval for an approximate 100 unit motel located on James Circle, south of Freeway Boulevard, adjacent to and westerly of the recently approved Embers Restaurant site. The special use permit is required for a C2 use in the I -1 District as provided by Section 35 -330 (3) (f) which states: Those commercial developments which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the I -1 District generally; 2. Complimentary to existing adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the I -1 District generally; 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 District land uses with respect to activity levels; 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon the Industrial Park or the community; and, which are described in Section 35 -322, Subsection 1(a) through l (j); 3 (c); 3 (d); and 3 (g) through 3 (j). Such commercial developments shall be subject to I -I District requirements of Section 35 -400 and 35 -413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classi- fication which the proposed development represents. A copy of the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220 is attached for the Commission's review. Plans have been reviewed by the staff and revisions have been requested of the applicant. 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 applicant con ted for f requested he t to g p future development. We have req e t pp indicate on the site plan the area for future expansion of the motel, and he has requested deferral of certain site improvements for the area contemplated as a potential restaurant site. It is recommended that a rolled bituminous curbing rather than concrete B 612 curb and gutter be permitted in the area proposed for a possible restaurant site. The Commission may well wish to require a specific time for such a deferral. The applicant has indicated on the site plan that a total of 118 parking spaces, including four handicapped spaces, will be provided. The ordinance formula re- quires parking spaces at the rate of one space per unit and one space for each • employee on any one shift. The applicant indicates that the maximum number of employees at any one time would be 12 and, therefore,.112 parking spaces would be required. 8 -24 -78 Application No. 78056 Page 2 The plans also indicate a live -in or housekeeping unit, apparently for an on -site caretaker or resident manager. We have discussed this aspect with the applicant and have indicated that residential living areas are not permitted in the I -1 or C2 Zoning Districts. 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. The matter does not seem to affect their plans to con- struct the motel, but they would like future consideration of the possibility of having such a live -in space in the motel. We have informed the applicant that it would be incumbent upon him to show that such live -in spaces can be compatible in this Zoning District. 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 detail within the upcoming months with the possibility of an ordinance amend- ment to permit such live -in spaces in hotels or motels. The City Engineer has contacted the applicant and requested _a grading and utility plan as well as a detail of the type of light fixtures proposed for the outside area. He has also suggested the addition of approximately three trees in the deferred area noting that these trees could be moved at a future date if there is the development of a restaurant on the site. At the time of the preparation of this agenda, we are awaiting the submission of revised plans. A public hearing has been sheduled and notices have been sent. Approval of the application would be subject to at least the following condittions: . 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. Site Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. 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 and regulations, and violation therefore shall be grounds for revocation. 6. The property shall be subdivided by plat or registered land 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 Standards No. 13. 8 -24 -78 Application No. 78056 Page 3 9._ Smoke detectors shall be installed in all sleeping units as per Minnesota Building Code requirements. 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. 8 -24 -78 �� ■ �� is gopmw FREEWAY r� �irrr r r OTHER AGENDA ITEM COMMENTS The following comments relate to the respective agenda items: Item No. 10 - Draft Ordinance Outlot Attached is a copy of a recommended ordinance amending Chapters 151.and 35 regarding a definition for Outlots per the Commission's direction at the July 27 study meeting. Item No. 10 -b - Site and Building Plan Reviews At the July 27 study meeting, the Commission discussed at some length, the possi- bility of pursuing alternate methods for reviewing site and building plans as a means of freeing up more Commission time for anticipated Comprehensive Planning 9 review as well as a seeming increase in variance requests. Another alternative has been suggested that was not previously discussed, that being the possibility of having only City Council review of site and building plans during the time of the Comprehensive Plan process. I feel it would be worthwhile for the Planning Commission to further discuss the matter of site and building plan review and the various alternatives.` Item No. 10 -c - R. L. Johnson Rezoning Request (Application No 78032 The City Council, at its August 14, 1978, voted unanimously to deny R. L. Johnson's request to rezone the property located northerly of Shingle Creek and westerly of Brooklyn Boulevard from R3 to C2 based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City Council 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 section and C2 in the northerly section). The Council also directed that the followin .items be considered i a review: g e n 1. The adjacent land in Brooklyn Park whi.ch..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; 5. The Commission should also consider the possibility of rezoning the landlocked acreage west of Mr. Johnson's property and northerly of P Shingle Creek for possible rezoning to Cl. 9 We will be prepared to discuss this matter in more detail at Thursday evening's meeting and make various recommendations. 8 -24 -78 I _ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE N0. • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 15 and 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO OUTLOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, Section 15 -103 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended, in part, by the addition of the following: (y) "Outlot" is a parcel of land included in a plat which is smaller than the minimun size.permitted and which is thereby ec ared unbuildable until combined with additional land; or a parcel of land which is included in a plat and which is more than double I • the minimum size and which is there y subject to future subdivision. Section 2. Section 35- 900 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended, in part, by the addition of the following: Outlot - Aparcel of land included in a plat which is smaller than e minimum size permitted and which is thereby declared unbuildable until combined with additional land; or a par of an which is included in a plat and which is more than double the minimum size - and which is thereby subject to future subdivision Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty. 30) days following its legal.publication. i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF.THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF • HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION '! AUGUST 10, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl. ROLL CALL Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Pierce, Book and Hawes. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn,Administrative Assistant Mary Harty, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPROVE MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) 7 -27 -78 Commissioner Hawes stated that the second line in the third paragraph on the second page should read "the general industry area located at 50th and France Avenues North, rather than 62nd and France Avenues North. Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes of the July 27, 1978 meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Book and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce who explained that he was not present at that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Jerry Harrington) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington. The Secretary explained the application was for.site and building approval for the property at 4455 - 68th Avenue North. The Secretary further explained that the applicant proposed a "wholesale distribution center" for the property, and this was not a listed permitted use for the C2 (Com- me.rce District). He continued that a determination would be necessary that the proposed use was similar in nature to the permitted, uses in the C2 zone. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and described the existing land uses surrounding the site. He stated that the area was zoned C2, and that the applicant contends that because of the nature of some of the existing land uses, such as, the NSP property adjacent to his property, which included the storage of vehicles, and the Post Office at 69th and Lee Avenues which comprehended a great deal of truck traffic, he has been unable to market the commercial speculativd building which had been approved under Application 77049. The Secretary continued that the applicant did not feel a commercial development was suitable for the area and desired the wholesale distribution concept proposed in this application. The Secretary stated the Commission had reviewed conceptual plans for the develop - ment at its June 15, 1978 meeting, and had looked at several approaches to the concept. He continued that the Commission had determined that the route most acceptable was to accept an application for the proposed development, and make a finding whether the proposed use was similar in nature to the permitted uses in the C2 District. 8 -10 -78 -1- The Secretary also commented that in 1973, the Planning Commission and City Counci) had reviewed a proposal for "mini warehouses" for the property. He explained that that proposal was for small storage warehouses, and that no commercial /retail was proposed. He continued that the City Council had not found the proposal similar - to the C2 uses and had found the use more appropriate to the I -1 (Industrial Park) and I -2 (General Industry) Districts. •' The Secretary commented that there were several major concerns regarding the plans submitted for review. He explained that the applicant has proposed three 20,000 sq. ft. buildings, but had not specified how much square footage would be devoted to retail use in each building. He also stated there was a concern with the park- ing as shown on the plan. He stated the applicant had calculated the required parking according to the industrial warehousing formula, and that approximately 100 additional spaces would be needed in order to meet the commercial parking require - ments. He continued that the applicant had not yet submitted revised plans,and that the application was presented for discussion purposes only. The Commission reviewed the site plan and a discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether the proposal was similar to American Bakeries at 4215 - 69th Avenue North. The Secretary responded that American Bakeries have been determined to be a use similar in nature to the permitted C2 uses. He further explained that American Bakeries had designated a portion of their building for retail use, and had provided adequate parking required by General Commercial use. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington stated his leasing agent had made a study of the feasibility of commercial use on the property. He stated that the biggest objection of prospective tenants was to the industrial nature of the surrounding area. He concluded that that site was not suitable for commercial use. The applicant also addressed the issue of parking. He stated that it was his understanding that the former S & H Green Stamp Store located at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North had been unable to provide the total number of parking spaces required by the commercial parking formula. He continued that the City Council had approved the development when a restrictive covenant was filed against the property such that any use other than the S & H Green Stamp use would require additional parking. A discussion ensued relative to the development proposal. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the applicant stated that the type of tenant who would lease in his project would require a large amount of warehouse space with office space for several office employees. He also commented that, if the project would ever go to a retail use, part of the square footage of one of the buildings could be used for parking. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the number of parking spaces required. The Secretary responded that depending upon the-particular use;approximately 200 parking spaces would be required. Chairman Engdahl asked whether the applicant proposed to condominiumize the buildings. The Secretary and the City Engineer re- sponded that that was not proposed at this time, and if it were proposed in the future, replatting of the site would be required. A brief discussion ensued relative to the 1973 "mini warehouse" proposal. Chairman Engdahl commented that under that application, only storage use had been proposed. Commissioner Pierce commented that the use proposed by the present applicant would comprehend only a few tenants, and would be more controllable than the "mini ware- house" which comprehended multiple tenants. • 8 -10 -78 -2- The Commission again reviewed alternative routes open to the applicant. Chairman Engdahl stated he did not feel rezoning was feasible because it would constitute "spot zoning." The Secretary stated that if the applicant wished to pursue placing a restrictive covenant on the property, the document would have to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to flow much of the total square footage of the building would be devoted: to commercial use. The applicant responded that ap- proximately 15% of the total square footage would be used commercially. Commissioner Pierce also questioned whether there was any.way to monitor the amount of office space with the issuance of building permits. Building Official Will Dahn replied that that was not feasible. Chairman Engdahl stated he felt the amount of office space versus warehouse space should be limited by the conditions of approval He stated he felt the proposal had merit, but the Commission and the Council had to look beyond the immediate proposal. The Secretary suggested that perhaps those types of concerns could be addressed in the restrictive covenant. He stated that evidence that the covenant had been filed would be required before permits could be issued. A discussion ensued relative to the required parking. The City Engineer stated that he had reviewed the site plan and according to his calculation, by eliminating some of the green area on the site, and reconfiguring the parking, it would be possible to provide an additional 55 stalls. He continued that this would provide for a total of 170 stalls, which would allow the building to occupied by approxi- mately 40% commercial use and 60% industrial use. Chairman Engdahl asked how the need for increased parking would be monitored. The City Engineer answered that a Certificate of Occupancy is required for a tenant space every time the tenant. .. changes, and each prospective tenant could be reviewed with respect to parking needs. Commissioner Hawes inquired of the applicant as to the types of tenants in his Plymouth facility. The applicant responded that the tenants in the Plymouth facility required a small office area and large warehousing area. He added that he could make a list of the tenants of that facility for the Commission. Commis - sioner Hawes also inquired whether any loading docks were proposed. The applicant responded that the buildings were designed with garage -type doors, but that loading docks could be constructed on the end of each building. Chairman Engdahl stated that after discussion of the application, the Commission could give the applicant a direction to work in. He requested the applicant to develop a restrictive covenant for review, submit detailed site and building plans so that the maximum commercial versus warehousing uses could be determined, and submit a plan showing the maximum parking available on the site. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Jerry Harrington) Motion by Commissioner Hawes secon e y Commissioner Book to table Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington pending submission of further information. The motion passed unanimously. . APPLICATION NO. 78047 (Josephine Bovy) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy. The Secretary stated the applicant sought a variance to permit an enclosed entrance to encroach into the corner side yard at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. 8 -10 -78 -3- The Secretary showed transparencies of a map of the area and of a survey of the property. He pointed out that the applicant's lot, being 77 ft. wide, was sub - standard. He also noted there were many other substandard lots located in the immediate area. He explained that most of those lots had been platted prior to 1957, when a Zoning Ordinance amendment changed the standards for corner lots from 75 ft. to 90 ft. He added that Mrs. Bovy's lot had been platted in 1968. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposed to add a 10' by 16' enclosed entryway to the side of the house which would encroach approximately 10 ft. into the required 25 ft. corner side yard. He continued that the applicant had sub- mitted a letter to the file explaining her request and outlining her justification for the variance. He explained that the access to the attached garage was from . 60th Avenue, while the house faced Colfax Avenue. He stated that there is a patio door with steps leading to it from the driveway which has, in effect, become the main entrance and exit to her home. He explained the applicant had stated that the accumulation of ice and snow on the steps in the winter make it dangerously slippery. He continued that the applicant contended a hardship exists if she is not permitted to construct the enclosed entryway, and that the construction would make the main entrance safe for access during all kinds of weather, provide a barrier against the elements that would make the house more energy efficient, and provide privacy during the evening hours of darkness from those passing by on the street. The Secretary reviewed the standards for granting a variance containing Section 35 -240, and stated that it did not appear that the request met the.qualifications of a hardship, as opposed to an inconvenience, contained in the ordinance, nor that the conditions of the variance were unique to the parcel, and not generally common to other properties in the same zoning classification. He stated that because of this, denial of the application was recommended. A lengthy discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether ordinance standards had changed after the house was built. The Secretary responded in the negative and explained that while prior to 1957, 75 ft. corner lots with a setback of 15 f t. were permitted, the appli.cant's property had been platted in 1968 as a substandard corner parcel under the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. He reviewed several ordinance amendments which had been adopted in 1976 which spoke to sub -` standard lots. He explained that one of these amendments allowed the construction of single family dwellings and permitted primary accessory buildings 15 ft, from the corner side lot line on lots which had been platted prior to December 19, 1957. He continued that the applicant's property had been platted in 1968, but was sub- standard in width. He.asked the Commission to consider whether it was the intent of the ordinance amendment to exclude those substandard corner lots which had been platted after 1957. The Secretary also explained the circumstances surrounding the platting of the applicant's property. He stated that a subdivision which had been platted in 1947 and which contained deep lots along Bryant Avenue had been combined with an un platted parcel along Colfax Avenue to create -the present Registered Land Survey of which the applicant's lot was a part. He explained that the previous lot lines had been extended through to Colfax Avenue, creating the substandard corner parcels.' Chairman Engdahl commented that most of the corner lots in the immediate area were substandard in width. In response to a. question from Commissioner Pierce, the Secretary stated that the December 19, 1957 date referred to in the ordinance was the date upon which the ordinance requiring 90 ft. corner lots with a setback of 25 ft. became effective. 8 -10 -78 -4- The Commission reviewed a map of the City showing the location of substandard corner parcels which had been platted prior to the ordinance change. Chairman Engdahl commented that he did not feel a variance should be granted since he did not think the situation was unique, and that the granting of the variance would set a precedence for setback variances. ! The City Engineer elaborated on the 1968 subdivision approval. He explained that the City could have required 90 ft. corner lots, but since the area was established with 75 ft. corner lots, the 77 ft. corner lots were allowed. He added that the Council recognized the variance on width in its subdivision approval. Commissioner Book questioned the purpose of the 25 ft. setback. The City Engineer responded that the purpose was for aesthetics, and improved safety, in that the distance from street traffic would be increased and obstruction of visibility on the corner would be decreased. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, Mrs. Josephine Bovy. Mrs. Bovy stated that her major concern was with safety. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, she stated that she proposed to add a 10' by 16' covered entryway. Com- missioner Book asked why she didn't use the front door as a major entrance. The applicant responded that because of the garage location, it was impracticable to use the front door. Commissioner Book also inquired whether there was an entrance to the house through the garage The applicant responded that there was, but that use of that entrance was also impracticable. The applicant presented a petition in favor of the proposed addition which contained .the names of 15 of her neighbors. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized the resident - of 906 - 6Dth Avenue North. She stated she was not opposed to the granting of the variance and thought the addition was a good idea. No one else spoke re- lating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close e the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. An extensive discussion ensued. Commissioner Pierce stated he felt staff should be directed to research the matter to discover whether there were any similar substandard lots which had been platted after 1957. He suggested that if there were not, perhaps a variance could be granted. Commissioner Malecki stated she felt the permitted 15 ft. setback should apply to all substandard corner.lots, not just those platted to 1957. Chairman Engdahl commented that the ordinance change had worked a hardship on those existing 75 ft. corner lots, but that no such hardship had been worked on those substandard lots created after the ordinance change. A discussion ensued relative to the status of the lots facing Bryant Avenue which had originally been latted in 1947. The City Engineer stated that P Y 9 technically the legal descriptions of those lots were of record as of 1968. Commissioner Book commented that it appeared most of the substandard corner lots were pre - 1957. Chairman Engdahl stated he would like to see more research done on the matter. He commented that since the City had allowed the creation of substandard corner lots since 1957, it might be unfair to have two separate standards. He asked the Secretary how it would take to complete research on the matter. The Secretary responded that the results of the research could be presented at the study meeting. Chairman Engdahl informed the applicant that the Commission would table the application pending further research and would reconsider it at its next meeting. 8 -10 -78 -5- TABLE APPLICATION N0. 78047 (Josephin Bov Following urt er discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by' Commissioner Book to table Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy to allow time to further research the matter. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 78043, 78049, 78050 (Meadow Corporation) The next item of consideration was Application Nos. 78048, 78049 and 78050 submitted 0 by Meadow Corporation. The Secretary explained that the items were related and should be considered jointly. He stated that Application No. 78048 was for site and building plan approval and special use permit amendment for Phases 3 and 4 of The Ponds Development, that Application No. 78049 was a preliminary plat of The Ponds - Plat 3, and Application No. 78050 was a preliminary plat for The Ponds Plat 4. He stated that Plats 3 and 4 were located at approximately 70th Circle and Unity Avenue Jorth. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and pointed out the location and configuration of the two proposed subdivisions. The City Engineer stated that the proposed plats were basically in order with the approved master plan of The Ponds. He commented that there were two revisions re- quired on the proposed Plat 3. He explained that the cul -de -sac on the west side of Unity Avenue had originally been proposed as a private roadway, but that it was now proposed as public street. He continued that a 35 ft. front setback was there- fore required, and that the plat should be revised to this. He explained that the second revision was that a dedicated walkway be provided from Plat 3 to Zane Elementary School located to the west in the City of Brooklyn Park. 'He stated that the location of the roadway would be confirmed with the school district and with the City of Brooklyn Park. He pointed out an approximate location on Plat 3. A brief discussion ensued relative to the walkway and preliminary plats. In re sponse to a question from Chairman Engdahl, the City Engineertsta.ted that the walk- way would be a dedicated easement and would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Duane Dietrich who represented the applicant. A � discussion ensued relative to the configuration of the preliminary plats. Mr. Dietrich briefly explained The Ponds platting and development process. He explained that the configuration of the subdivision followed the configuration of the original Outlots which were platted under The Ponds Addition. In response to questions re- garding the walkway . he stated that Superintendent of the Osseo School District had requested provisions of a walkway to Zane Elementary School in order to avoid the necessity of the children from The Ponds development having to walk down Unity Avenue to 69th Avenue in order to get to school. He continued that the school board had been asked for input on the walkway location, but that the developer had not yet received a response. He also noted that the walkway would be approximately 4 ft. wide in order to avoid any vehicular traffic. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl, Mr. Dietrich; discussed the proposed cul-de -sac off Unity Avenue. He stated that an island was proposed for the center of the cul -de -sac which would help delineate traffic and could be used to'store snow in the winter. Chairman Engdahl commented he thought the island made the cul- de-sac more aesthetic and would improve the control of traffic. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman EngdahI announced that public hearing had been scheduled on all -three applications. He recognized Mr. Tracy Tyler of 7043 Regent Avenue North. Mr. Tyler stated that the original Council approval of The Ponds Development had com- prehended phasing of the development in order to review any problems which might arise as the development progressed. He stated that he had had a problem this summer with water in his basement, which he attributed to the grading being con- ducted at The Ponds. He also stated that a drainage ditch had been plugged and there was stagnant water standing in the area, which seemed to cause an increase i.n the number of mosquitoes in the area. 8- 10-78_ -6- The City Engineer responded that the grading of the development and the drainage system which was being installed should improve the drainage in the overall area and should not have caused the water in the neighbors basement. Mr. Dietrich re- ferred to the conditions of the area prior to the development and discussed the drainage system being installed at The Ponds. He stated that he felt that the drainage situation had improved with The Ponds development. He continued that the S past two years there had been four rainfalls that exceeded the 100 year flood level, and that because of this, many residents in the Metropolitan area were experiencing water in their basements. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearings. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission reviewed the site plans and preliminary plats. Commissioner Pierce questioned whether the grading plan was the same as had originally been approved. The City Engineer responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Pierce also asked Mr. Dietrich how many lots had been sold in Phase 2. Mr. Dietrich responded that , of the 68 lots in Phases 1 and 2, not including the three models, there were only three unsold lots. Also in response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, Mr. Dietrich stated that the townhouse units were essentially the same buildings with approximately 10 variations. Commissioner Pierce asked whether the landscaping plan was consistent with the approved master plan. The City Engineer responded that it was. The Secretary commented that the required fencing along the R -1 Zoning District line was being installed as the phases developed. Following further discussion, Chairman Engdahl stated he was ready for separate motions on the applications. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78048 (Meadow Corporation) Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Ma ecki to recommend ap- proval of 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 development approval by the City Council on October 18, 1.976 under Application No. 76041, including the provision for screen fencing along the R -1 (Single Family) Zoning District boundary. 5. Viable turf, such as sod or seed shall be provided for all open space areas in accordance with approval by the City. 8 -10 -78 -7- Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Pierce and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Book,who stated he had an interest in the application. The motion passed. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78049 (Meadow Corporation) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded-by Commissioner Pierce to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 78049 submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the following conditions: I 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. 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. The notion passed. R ECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78050 (Meadow Corporation Motion by Conmissioner Hawes seconded y Commissioner Malecki to recommend ap- proval of 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. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor:_ Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Pierce and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Book. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10:15 p.m. and resumed at 10:30 p.m. APPLICATION 140. 78052 (Delbert Holmin) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78052 submitted by Delbert Holmin. The Secretary stated the applicant sought a variance on the front setback for the property located at 6315 Brooklyn Boulevard. .The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and stated the applicant sought a variance from the required 50 ft. front setback along major thoroughfares in order. to build a house with a 35 ft. front setback, in line with•the existing houses to the north. The Secretary stated that the applicant had been asked to respond in writing to the standards for variances. He stated that such a response had not been received. The Secretary also showed a transparency of a survey of the property, showing the location the applicant proposed for the house, and showing the location of the same house in a manner which met all of the setback requirements. He continued that it appeared the matter was one of design, not one of hardship. He stated the applicant preferred to build the house in line with the houses to the north which were built in 1955 prior to the adoption of the 50 ft. setback standard along major thoroughfares. He pointed out that the existing house to the south of the applicant's property was set back.53 ft., and that the applicant's house could be built in line with that house. 8 -10 -7$ -8 Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the zoning of the property. The Secretary re- sponded that there were restrictive covenants against the property in that block which did not allow any uses other than single family residences. He continued that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning recognized the area as R -1 (Single Family • Residence). Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant Mr. Delbert Holmin. Mr. Holmin stated that because of the design of the house, if it were set back 50 ft. he would have a view of his neighbor's garage. He stated he liked the area at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard and wanted to build his home with a good view of Brooklyn Boulevard. He also stated that if the house were set back 50 ft. , he would have a small rear yard, and that he preferred to have the yard area in the rear rather than in the front. He also stated that the existing home to the south was the home of the original owner of the land in the area, and had been built long before the other houses. The Secretary stated that because of the angle of Brooklyn Boulevard, setting the house back 50 ft. should not obstruct the view of the street. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated that he and the Building_ Official had reviewed different designs for the location of the house on the property, and that there were other configurations which would meet all the setback requirements. He continued that the plan presented had used the exact dimensions of the house the applicant proposed. A brief discussion ensued relative to the covenant. The applicant stated the covenant was an extended contingency covenant. He explained that the property had been platted in approximately 1955, and that the covenant had been added in 1957. He continued that the covenant had been tested in court, and that it stood. In response to a question from Commissioner Book the applicant stated that he wanted his house built at a 35 ft. setback, and pointed out that if the house had been built at the same time as the other houses in the block, the '35 ft. setback would have been permitted. He also stated that the large front yard created by the 50 'ft. setback would be of no use to him since it fronted onto Brooklyn Boulevard,. He added that he had owned the property for approximately 13 years and also owned a vacant corner lot in the same block at Halifax Drive and Brooklyn Boulevard. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized the resident of 6306 France Avenue North, who stated he was in favor of the variance to build the house in line with the other houses on the block. He continued that the vacant lot had been an eyesore for 21 years,, and that he had frequently called the City regarding trash on the lot with no success He also commented regarding the covenant. Chairman Engdahl recognized the resident of 6325 Brooklyn Boulevard who stated she would like to see the variance granted. She continued that she felt a 50 ft. setback for the house would spoil the line of the neighborhood. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. An extensive discussion ensued. Commissioner Hawes stated he felt the 50 ft. setback standard was established with a great deal of thought because of the noise and hazards arising from the heavy traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that he felt the protection from the traffic provided by the 50 ft. setback was an advantage. He also pointed out that if the house were built at 50 ft., it would be approximately in line with the existing house to the south. 8 -10 -78 -9- Commissioner Book stated he was more in favor of granting - the variance than against it. He agreed with the applicant that rear yard area was more desirable than front yard area. He stated he saw some logic in granting the variance due to the unique configuration of the lot, which was somewhat irregularly shaped. The Secretary stated that the setback standard along major thoroughfares applies to • all buildings in all zoning districts. He continued that if a clear case of hard- ship and uniqueness were not proved, that a precedent would be set for violating the 50 ft. standard. Commissioner Malecki questioned whether the other buildings in the block were "grandfathered" in under the present ordinance. The Secretary responded that they were. Chairman Engdahl stated he could see problems with setting a precedent by granting the variance. Commissioner Pierce stated that the purpose of the 50 ft. setback was for protection for the homeowner. Commissioner Book questioned whether a commercial development could utilize the front setback area for anything other than greenstrip. The Secretary reviewed the setback and greenstrip requirements, and stated that part of the setback could be used for parking in a commercial development. Commissioner Hawes pointed out that another reason for keeping the 50 ft. setback would be to provide an adequate area for a turn- around driveway which would increase safety for access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78052 (Delbert Holmin Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No..78052 submitted by Delbert - Holmin in that the application does not meet the standards for a' variance. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Pierce and Hawds. Voting against: Commissioner Book. Not voting: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 78054 (Lund Martin Company) • The next item of consideration was of Application No. 78054 submitted by Lund Martin Company. The Secretary stated the application was for site and building plan ap- proval to construct a 20' by 20' freestanding storage building to store lithium on the Medtronic site, 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary - showed a transparency of the area and stated the applicant had sub- mitted a letter explaining the desirability of the storage building. He stated that lithium reacts violently when exposed to water and must be stored in a temperature and humidity controlled environment. He continued that at present lithium was stored in air tight containers located in a nonsprinklered area in the southeast portion of the Medtronics building. The Secretary continued that the building would be located approximately 40 ft. 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 that other fire detection system would be supplied. He stated that the Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and had suggested that heat and smoke detectors connected to a centrally monitored alarm system should be installed. He added that the applicant had con - curred with these suggestions. He briefly reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. The Commission next reviewed the site and building plan. In response to questions from Chairman Engdahl the Secretary stated that the area proposed for the building was now a green area, and that the building met all setback requirements. The City • Engineer stated that due to the location of an underground storm sewer, it was recommended the building be moved approximately 4 ft. easterly. 8 -10 -78 -10- Chairman Engdahl recognized a Lund Martin Company representative, and Mr. Pete Wilkin of Medtronic, Inc. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Wilkin explained that the exterior of the storage building would match the existing building. He stated that the mechanical and electrical systems would run on a heat pump and would be located behind a parapet on the roof. Commissioner Hawes quest- ioned whether anyone would work in the building. Mr. Wilkin responded that the building was for storage purposes only and that no one would work in it. A discussion ensued relative to the safety precautions involved in using lithium. Mr. Wilkin explained that training sessions have been held for the Fire Department regarding lithium, and that the Fire Department was fully aware of the dangers and considerations involved. Commissioner Book inquired as to the use of lithium. Mr. Wilkin responded that lithium was uged in producing batteries for the pacemakers manufactured by Medtronic. He further explained the nature of the element lithium, and submitted a revised site plan showing a new location of the storage building which avoided the storm sewer. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78054 (Lund Martin Company) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Pierce to recommend approval of Application No. 78054 submitted by Lund Martin Company subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 78032 (R. L. Johnson) The next item of consideration was disposition of Application No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson for rezoning of the property located in the 7200 block on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard from R3 (Townhouse and Garden Apartments) to C2 (Commerce). The Secretary stated that at its July 27, 1978 meeting the Commission had voted to direct the staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the application. He continued that the resolution was presented for the Commission's review and action. 8 -10 -78 -ll- Commissioner Hawes raised a question relative to the second point of the resolution. He commented that the Neighborhood Advisory Group had recommended approval of the split zoning concept whereas the language in the resolution implied they had favored retaining the present zoning. The Secretary responded that the language in the second point referred to testimony offered by the notified property owners at the public hearing and not to the Neighborhood Group's recommendation. RESOLUTION NQ. 78 -1 Commissioner Malecki introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION.:OF APPLICATION NO. 78032 SUBMITTED BY R. L. JOHNSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commis- sioner Engdahl, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Engdahl and Commissioner Malecki, the following voted against same: Commissioner Hawes; not voting: Commissioner Pierce who stated he had not been present at the meetings during which the application had been discussed, and Commissioner Book who stated that while he had originally made the motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution - recommending denial of the application, cir- cumstances had arisen in the interim which caused him to abstain to avoid a conflict of interest. Said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. A discussion followed. Commissioner Hawes stated he had voted against the resolution because he felt there was some merit to the request in that the 100 ft. easement along Shingle Creek made development of the parcel difficult,and the town- house residents to the south of the property did not seem to object to the proposed Cl use on the southerly portion of the parcel. Commissioner Book pointed out the proposal was to rezone the entire property to C2 and that there would be no guarantee that the southerly portion of the site would be developed with a Cluse. Chairman Engdahl stated that it was his recommendation that the applicant pursue a Cl zoning for the entire property, develop the southerly portion with such a use, and upon review of the development, perhaps a C2 zoning could be considered for the northerly portion of ' the site. Commissioner Pierce commented that although he had not been present during consider- ation of the application, he recalled initial discussion of the matter, and felt that the site was more conducive to Cl use than to intense C2 use. Commissioner Book stated that he was strongly opposed to split zoning of the site because he felt it would constitute spot zoning. He added that he felt C2 uses would _generate traffic which would be too intense for the location of the property on Brooklyn Boulevard. He also stated that he felt the R3-zoned property to the south was adequately buffered by the 100 ft. Shingle Creek greenstrip and that those residents should not dictate the use of the adjacent property. The Secretary and the City Engineer also discussed the issue of providing enough parking on the site to support a C2 use. The Secretary commented that, although the applicant had mentioned the possiblity of providing parking on the adjacent property in Brooklyn Park, the issue was more than a routine Joint Parking Agree- ment and would require further in -depth review. Commissioner Hawes noted that at the July 27, 1978 meeting, the applicant had stated that he was being assessed for the provision of utilities to the Real Estate 10 property across Brooklyn Boulevard, and asked if this were true. The.City Engineer responded that Real Estate 10 was paying the entire cost of provision of utilities to the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard, and 50 %,of the cost of provision to the west side. He explained that if the cost were assessed traditionally based upon frontage of the properties to be benefited, the cost to Mr. Johnson would have been greater. 2- 10 -79 -1'9- OTHER BUSINESS ► GROUND ROUND LANDSCAPING PLAN The next item of consideration was review of the landscaping plan for the Ground Round Restaurant located at 2545 County Road 10. The Secretary stated that the staff had met with Bill Sheehy regarding problems with the site work. He stated that some of the shrubbery which had been approved was not actually hardy enough to grow in Minnesota. He stated that the new plan showed provisions for hardier shrubs, and for a wood retaining wall along the sloping area on the easterly side of the site. He also stated that the applicant proposed to replace some of the sod in areas where it had been killed by the overlap of parked cars with a 6'inch wood mulch treatment. A discussion ensued relative to the`landscaping revision. Commissioner Pierce and Hawes pointed out that along the easterly side of the site, there could be problems maintaining the walkway due to the type of shrubbery proposed for that area. It was the consensus of the Commission that the developer work with City staff in completing revisions to the plan. STUDY MEETING The Commission next reviewed several items proposed for consideration at the August 24 study meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to review those business items at the study meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Book to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Chairman 8 -10 -78 -13- MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: August 24, 1978 w SUBJECT: Housing Commission Housing Seminar The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission in conjunction with the Brooklyn Center League of Women Voters and with the assistance of the Metropolitan Council are sponsoring a "Housing Awareness Seminar" on September 16, 1978. The seminar is primarily directed to local officials both elected and appointed, but it will be open to the public. A registration charge of $3.50 for advanced registration or a $5.00 registration charge at the door will be collected. The seminar will be held at the Brooklyn Center High School. The seminar will address a number of housing concerns facing municipalities today. An agenda is attached for your review. The following is a tentative budget for the seminar. a. Brooklyn Center High School $ -0- b. Mailings and Materials 60.00 c. Folders (.15 each) 22.50 d. Coffee /Cookies 95.00 e. Advertisement- -0- f Speakers -0- TOTAL $177.50 i It is anticipated that the registration fees should cover the costs of the seminar. t • HOUSING AWARENESS SEMINAR - -- "78" SPONSORED BY THE BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING COMMISSION AND THE BROOKLYN CENTER LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS FOCUS ON HOUSING THE NEEDS, PEOPLE TO BE SERVED - PROGRAMS AVAILABLE BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL - 6500 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH (1 -94 Exit - 2 blocks north) SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1978 $ :00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. TIMETABLE: Registration: 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. General Session: 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Coffee Break 10:30 to 10:50 a.m. Workshops I 11 :00 to 11:45 a.m.) concurrent and Workshops IL 11:50 to 12 :40 a.m.) repeating Wrap Up: 12:45 to 1:00 p.m. GENERAL SESSION TOPICS: • 1. . THE METRO PERSPECTIVE: Housing needs, short-and long range in the metro area 2. THE PRIVATE SECTOR VIEW: Costs and housing, financing low & moderate housing 3. STATE AND FEDERAL PERSPECTIVES: Goals and limitations of their programs. 4. STATE LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW: Minnesota's legislative effort on housing WORKSHOPS: A. Community concerns by local housing officials: Myths of subsidized housing. The people in need of subsidized housing. B. Special housing needs, handicapped, etc. • C. HUD and MHFA programs available. D. Local example of implementation of programs currently available. E. Future trends in housing and ability to serve the future demands. F. Local planning for future housing needs. G. Metro housing programs and its relation to local government. H. Influencing factors on housing delivery: Gov't. regs, lending institutions, policies, consumers attitudes, incentives, etc. WRAP UP SESSION; General comments on the program concluded and the challenges for each community 'and its leaders to consider. Managers and Administrators please forward to your Council members. NOTE: Workshops may be subject to change because of pre - registration interest and panelist conflicts x At JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT I. PARTIES i 1. The parties to this agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended by Laws 1973, Chapter 431. 2. The parties to this agreement are the County of Hennepin, and the City of . 3. In consderation.of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this agreement, the parties mutually agree to the terms and conditions contained herein. LI. DEFINITIONS 1. For purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. (a) "The Act means the Housing and Community Development Act • of 1974, Title I, of Public Law 93- 383. (b) "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act. (c) "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (d) "Cooperating City" means any city in the county which has entered into -a cooperation agreement which is substantially identical to this agreement. 2. The definitions contained in Section 102 of the Act and Sections 570.3 and 570,.105 (c) of the Regulations are incorporated by reference in this agreement and made a part hereof. -2- III. PURPOSE I. City and county have determined that it is desirable and in the interests of its citizens that county qualify as an urban county within the provisions of the Act. This- agreement contemplates that identical agreements will be executed between county and other cities in county which do not qualify.as metropolitan cities under the Act in such number as will enable county to so qualify under the Act. 2; The purpose this agreement is to authorize o e c n u t 9 y to cooperate with city in undertaking, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, pursuant to community development block grants as authorized by the Act and the Regulations. 3. It is further the purpose of this agreement to allow city maximum • flexibility and discretion in the administration and implementation of community development and housing assistance programs funded by basin grant amounts received by county pursuant to this agreement. IV. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES 1. City agrees and will.undertake, -and attempt to carry out within the term of this agreement, certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. 2. County agrees and will assist city in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this agreement. 3. City further specifically agrees as follows: (a) It will prepare a grant application for funds in accordance with the provisions of Subpart D of the Regulations. (b) It will submit its application for funds to county in such form and with such certifications as are required for timely -3- submission to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies. 4. County further specifically agrees as follows: (a) It shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing - agencies, all necessary applications for a basis grant amount under the Act, such application to contain the application submitted by city without modifications except those necessary for the purposes of consol- idation with applications from other cities. (b) It provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to city in the preparation and sub - mission of grant applications. 5. The parties mutually agree to cooperate fully in the preparation of the application for a basic grant amount. £. It is recognized by the parties that time is of the essence of this I I agreement and that timely submission of grant applications by the parties is of primary importance to the best interest of both parties. City and county agree • that county may establish reasonable time schedules for the submission of -grant applications by city to county to insure such timely submission and to _ protect the rights and interest of city and other cooperating cities. County -agrees to make its best efforts in communicating such time schedules to city. 7. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations in the use of basic grant amounts, the Community Development plan and program and the Housing Assistance Plan submitted pursuant to the Act and the regulations. 8. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate county's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the housing assistance plan, the three -year community development plan summary, the community development program, and -G certification to be signed by it. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS ' 1. Basic grant amounts received by the county 'under the Act shall be allocated by the county as follows: (a) (i) During the first year of this agreement five percent of the amount shall be retained by county for the purposes of'defraying its administrative and other costs in performing services for city and other cooperating cities, in' undertaking essential activities as such terms are defined by the Act and the Regulations. Such percentage is deemed to include an amount paid to county by city for cost of service equal to an amount which bears the same ratio to said five percent as the city's allocation under this article bears to the total of allocations made to all cooperating citites. The sum specified by this paragraph is determined by the parties to be a reasonable estimate of the.costs be incurred by county in carrying out its obligations under this agreement. (ii) In years subsequent to the first year of this agreement the _ amount retained by county shall be increased by two percent each year thereafter up to -a sum not to exceed ten> percent of the total basic grant amount, provided however, that in years subsequent to the first year funds retained by the county shall be used by county for the purposes of paragraph (i) and for the conduct of such eligible activities as the county may be authorized by state law to perform. (b) The balance of the basic grant amount shall be distributed by county to city and other cooperating cities in accordance with the following formul a 5_ The City and each cooperating city shall receive an amount ' which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: I� 1. The population of city and the population of all cooperating cities. 2. The extent of poverty in city and the extent of poverty in all cooperating cities. 3. The extent of housing overcrowding by units in city and the extent of housing overcrowded by units in all cooperating cities. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio -involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. It is the intent of this paragraph that said allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in Section 507.102 • -of the Regulations. _2. In the event that city or county does not apply for or cannot qualify for a community development block grant, county may reallocate the -basic grant amount to all other cooperating cities pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of this Article. If the county is informed in writing by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that the distribution affected by Section 1 of this Article does not comply with Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the county shall effectuate a different distribution if necessary to comply wiht`the Act. No such action shall be taken, however, until and unless the proposed different distribution shall have been presented for review and comment by the cooperating cities. -G- Yi. SPECIAL PROVISION I. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to prevent or otherwise modify or abrogate the right of city or county to submit individual applications for discretionary funds in the event county does not receive designation as an urban county under the Act. 2. City and county mutually agree to indemnify and hold harmless each party from any claims,losses, costs, expenses or damages resulting from the acts or omissions of their respective officers, agents and employees relating to activities conducted by either under this agreement, the Act or the Regulations. VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS I. All funds received by county under the Act shall be deposited in a special fund in the treasury of county with an appropriate separate account Provided for city's share, and disbursement thereof to city will be made _ immediately in accordance with the 'provisions of law governing the disbursement of. funds by county. 2. City and county agree to maintain financial and other records and - accounts in accordance with fie requirements of the Act and Regualtions. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required by city and county to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of funds to final expenditure. 3. City and county agree to make available at all reasonable times to their respective authorized personnel, and similarly authorized federal officials, all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this agreement. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the effective date of this agreement. 4. City agrees to perform all necessary audits of funds received from -7- county and to make available such audits to county at such times as may be' necessary to permit county to comply with audit requirements under the Act • and Regulations. By mutual agreement,*city and county may agree to permit "county personnel to perform such audits on such cost for _service terms as may be acceptable to the parties. VIII. TERMINATION 1 The term of this agreement is for a period commencing on its effective date and ending one year after the awarding of the basic grant amount by 'HUD. This period _shall be referred to as the first year. 2. The - agreement is automatically extended for additional one -year periods after the first year unless written notice of termination to be effective at the end of any such subsequent year is given by one of the parties to the other no later than 180 days before the end-of such year. 3. This agreement is terminated upon the 'date on which HUD determines that county no longer qualifies as an urban count y under the Act. IX. EFFECTIVE DATE 1. This agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of city and county pursuant to ,authority granted them by their respective governing bodies; and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed agreement shall be filed promptly by the city in the office of the county administrator. 2. This agreement is effective on the date when substantially identical cooperation agreements have been filed as provided in Section 1 of this Article by cities having a combined population of 200,000 computed as provided by the Act. County shall promptly notify city of the effective date of the agreement. If this contract is executed and filed after the effective date specified above it shall be effective upon the date so filed. 3. If within 90 days after the effective date of this agreement, county is not designated an urban county under the Act, or such designation once made is withdrawn by HUD, this agreement shall terminate at the end of said 90 day period or on the date of such withdrawal of designation. ° IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this day of 14 CITY OF By Its Mayor And Its Clerk COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Upon proper execution, this By agreement will be legally C ai rman of its County Board valid and binding and upon date of approval is in com- And pliance with all Taws rela- Deputy County Administrator ting to the subject matter hereto. ATTEST: Deputy County Auditor Assistant County Attorney Date Approved.as to execution Assistant County Attorney Date: Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 28, 1978 GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE _ Tarco of Minnesota - MCS 10041 Polk St. N.E. (third truck) Sanitarian 1A ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Lenny DeMann 11740 Jefferson St. N.E. (Iten Chevrolet) 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Lawrence Brown 8901 West River Rd. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. 7. - Ab(J Sanitarian - MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Petroleum Maint. Co. 1420 Old Hwy 8 Building Inspector 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. I Transfer: Gary M. Olson 3715 - 69th Ave. No. /�� a A--- Director of Planning and Inspection i • . - I►ici +inn of I'ul Rrronl. - &tote of Alinnegota 8� Registrar of Titles ,OUNTY OF HENNEPIN I, Wayne A. .1ohnson, Registrar of Titles, within and for said Count)'+ Hennepin and statt of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carttull compared the above and foregoing copy.of Covenents a nd 1 . est n.s with the original thereof as filed in my office, as 1)ocument No. - and that ti scant, is a true anti correct photo -copy of the sanu•, :nnl'„f tilt, whole thereof, and I do further certify. that I am the officer in 3ah;a: c,istnd' said original is required by law to be kept. In witncas Wilereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal tlO., 1p.i -b day of April A. D. 1 78 Wayne A. .Joh - - -- -- Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. State of Min sots By _ heputy Rat,, tr <n' Of I i rlcs' .1O This indenture made - •r day July, i955 Ly C3: i' Jc,:naon and Sons, Inc., a corporation, who is the owner of the following doscrabed premises situate in Hennepin County, M n:tes0ta, to -wit: Lots 1 to 1.5 inclusive; Block 1; Lots 1,20,4, and G to 10 meld ivn, IllOrc 2; Intl 1 to inclusive, Block 3; Lots 1 to 5 inclusive, Ilncl- I1' In t'r Meadows Addition, Ilennepin.Countyi. fiirulcaota, V1 J t'i:•.1 L. Ruud, husband and wife, are the owners kf' 1`6 ", i,.loul. Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, said Claus•H. Joh son and Son , Ins., an,! villi-a A. Ruud and .1Ielen L. Ruud, husband and wi.e, desire to sub •r11 0. �i'1 t tctr of lard to perta 'jn covenents, easements, restrictment.., ccnIrt. ., i,c1 ctraLfec as hereinafter set out. ' HOW THERT '02E, this indenture witncsse c ":+ . and Solis, Inc., a corporation and +1:_Il am A. Ruud ?n and wife, do hereby impose and charge all or the Lots, `Q-rcl land in Fair I•Ieadows Addition, Hennepin County, dine i.l, utn, n •, agreements, easements, restrictions, conditions and charfv a fc -'I7 u 1. LAND USE ANn tUILDING TYPE. No Lot slinll bE u:,a 1 t. Cur residential purposes. IIo building shall be erecter , j,'r ,, r.r 1 + ct, l -e'd • o remain on any lot other than one detached exceed two stories in neiE rt an ., priva,c farLg 2. D ,NZ.T,I,ING SIZE. The ground floor of the exclusive of one -story open porches and garages t b ar square feet for a one -story dwelling, nor less than . yt :gnaz ' i+ ol. for L dwelling of more than one - story. 3. ]JUILDIN thin �0 f+nL to nn G LOCATION. No building shall. be heated on tiny 1n6, nearer than 35 feet to the front lot line, or nearer eic street line. No building shall be located nearer than five fe a Ln an inter lot line, e::a tha$ no side yard sha7'L be regni.re•d f'c a r r• ro rr of.hrr permitted accessory buil.dlrg located �J feet or n c r T set back line. For.t&',Purposes; of tbiSxPm6hent, parches shall not be considered, as a part of d.'r,ror, that 1•his shall not.be constrmed'to permit any nrtt.cr. ^ '! "' ).at to encroach upon another lot. 11. LOT AREA AND hZDTH. No dwelling lia7i. b erect on an;,- lot having a'width of less.than 60 feet at the m.nf r ,n. a back line nor shall' an;,* dwelling be erected or .pl r c l on any i of iravi n� an rL t:3 area of less than 7500 square feet. �r �: L/1 r i 5• EASL'MENTS. Easements for installation E `utilities and drainage facilities(4�re resarved )�DJ r the icai Cia ( ) feet of each lot,(an�as`w ere' indicated in the of r1i_r 1•tuair ,� p - �, G. NUISANCES. No noxious or of acL:ivat sh: r r, c•a"r'i +' f/ JFF`, on upon anc lot, nor shall. anything be done thr;reon wlri_ntt t beco: ^e an rnnoyance or nr�isance to tb.c neighborhood - 7. TEW01WRY STRUCTU'iES. ` ho structt ( w !:j ti .nr ar t trai).er, basement, tent, barn, shack, garage or other lilulrhnc .nail. ne nA c. on any :Lot at any time as a residence either temporar;/ or _.;, w' :s ...r n a,.., .•:, s.3 -..:n4 dr .� k %�9 *Y e III TLSTTMORY mip.JOF, the sDd ri.lir it lniin , rid S- ° t: ,' anc. have hereunder set their hand the day Cie ye Julu, c r "b n + n,, J nc. l In rresunce of: r ar.rr' � �/ Pt•e: nt, nit i COIJNTY OF FEUNEPIN) S5. On this 12th day of July, 1955, before 1 3 " r P111 1 , wit'.fin and for said County, personna) Ty appeared ' +' " '• + ` Pre=sident of Claus H. Johnson and Sons, Inc., to r :n ^m L •s � s +++ �,.......: :.described in,, and who executed the forenoi.ng instrilr - `hat l e executed the same as his free act and decd. I Notary Publ . My Q•mmi i� C¢ :1:cc �n.a ?. ?rt,1, STATE OF AT MESOTA) COUIITY OF HENNEKN) SS. On this 12th day of July, 1955, before me, a Ilotar: rvC;J c, within and for said County, personnally appuai<1 Il Hon , i ::n•+ Hr.:1cn L. Ruud, husband and wife, to me Lnoim 1 Oif , , described in, and who executed tho forer iru^ j3 M., acknowledged that they executed the came as;ihril Ut��' j f 1 / 11666 r Notary Public, llernepin County, MinnLsoLa !i�;•E �: � i-tr Commission er-pi.rr.s rl 1 I s X � W co mo .� - - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- - - - -- s �- _ _.. •Ka L +. y r y v - Ir ! � J Prt � . rs - - . �_. 7 4� + '�w , u '�• �,•/ .`yam - ` � _r _ n •',,,�,,. � ^;, • yam• . � y� 1. _mw L� 7 r� Election Judge Replacements Primary Election September 12 1978 Precinct 1 (D) Ardyce Matson 5525 Morgan Avenue North 561 -5892 Precinct 2 (R) Nancy Tanji 6330 Girard Avenue North 561 -2732 Precinct 3 (D) Nancy Chambers 6917 Dallas Road 566 -6236 Precinct 4 (D) Joan Hagemann 7119 Halifax Avenue North 560 -6533 Precinct 6 (R) Judith Dax 2814 Northway Drive 560 -0865 Precinct 8 (R) Enid Torell 3400 50th Avenue North 535 -4807 f I i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR ADDITIONAL TILING IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER WHEREAS, Section 7,11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make permanent transfers between all funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with the provisions of relevant covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or State Statute; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 1977, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a budget for the calendar year 1978• and 1 Y WHEREAS, said budget did appropriate the sum of $45,000 to provide for the tiling of the Community Center Swimming Pool; and WHEREAS, said appropriation was to be financed by federal revenue sharing funds; and WHEREAS, bids were subsequently taken for the tiling of the swimming pool; and WHEREAS, the successful bidder, at the City's request, included a price for any additional tiling agreed upon in accordance with the specifications; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following additional tiling is necessary within the Community Center: . Area Sq . Ft. Cost Girls' Locker Area 1,100 $3,630 Hallway from Girls' Locker Area 279 920 Boys' Locker Area 1,270 4,191 Sauna 126 -417 Main Entryway 660 2,178 and $ 11,836 WHEREAS, an additional $9,586 *appropriation will be required to finance the additional tiling, and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND in the amount of at least $9,586 to be transferred for GENERAL FUND use: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to amend the .1978 GENERAL FUND Budget by increasing the Community Center (Dept. #66) Buildings Account ( #4520) by $9,586 to provide for the additional Community Center tiling and RESOLUTION NO. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the increased appropriation shall be financed by federal revenue sharing funds and that funds in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND shall be encumbered in the amount of $9,586; and BE 'IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actual transfer of funds will .be made from the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND to the GENERAL FUND on a reimbursement basis at such time, and by Council resolution when the GENERAL FUND has expended funds for the appropriation authorized. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member I , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I -