The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978 09-25 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Brooklyn Center September 25, 1978 7:00 p.m. 1. Call - to Order 2. Roll Call 3 . Invoca'tion 4. Approval of Minutes - September 11, 1978 & September 13, 1978 5. Open Forum 6. Release Performance Bonds a. Bermel Smaby b. 7— ven--& 7. Reduce Performance Bonds a Hiawatha Rubber 8. Public Hearings a. Federal Revenue Sharing (8:00 p.m.) b. Special Assessment Hearing (8 :05 p.m.) -On proposed assessments 9. Resolutions: a. Authorizing - the Purchase of Shade Trees for Various City Parks b. Authorizing 'the Issuance of Temporary Improvement Notes Interim financing prior to the selling of bonds - to finance certain improvement project costs which are to be assessed against benefited properties. c. Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -31, Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -32, S'tree't Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -33, Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -34, Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -35, Street Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -36, and Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -37 i Public hearings are scheduled - to be held on October 16, 1978 at 8 :00 p.m. Projects are located on Unity Avenue North in - the area of 69th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. d. Approving Plans and Specifications for Street Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -33 and 1978 -36, and Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -34 and 1978 -37, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Street Paving and Curb and Gutter Contract No. 1978 -P) -Bid opening for the above contract is set for October 16, 1978 at 11:00 f a.m. Projects are located on Unity Avenue North in the area of 69Th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 25, 1978 e. Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -4 and Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5 - Public hearings are scheduled - to be held October 16, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. Projects are located on Brooklyn Boulevard south of - the northern City boundary. f. Accepting Quotations for Landscaping Contract No. 1978 -Q -The above contract is for the landscaping portion of Alley Surfacing Project No. 1977 -13 between James Avenue North and Knox Avenue North from 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue North; 1977 -22 between Twin Lake Avenue North and Lakeview Avenue North in the area of Lakebreeze Avenue North; 1978 -7 between Humboldt Avenue North and Irving Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North to 54th Avenue North; and Street Surfacing and Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -2 on 70 Avenue North from Kyle Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard; and Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -20 on Irving Avenue North between 70th Avenue North and Irving Lane; 1978 -24 on Aldrich Avenue North from 68th Avenue North 'to the cul -de -sac; 1978 -27 on James Circle in - the area of Freeway Boulevard. g. Authorizing -the Rental of Dragline for Central Park Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 h. Amending Resolution o. 1978 -198 Approving Plans and Specifications g R N App g Sp for Utility Contract No. 1978 -0 and Directing Advertisement for Bids -This resolution amends above contract to include a portion of Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 relating to lowering a 16 water main. i.- Establishing Salt Storage Building Project No. 1978 -43 j. Approving Plans and Specifications for Salt Storage Building and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract No. 1978 -R) -Bid opening is set for October 25, 1978 at 11;00 a.m. k. Confirming Assessments for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1977 -15 and 1978 -17; and Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1977 -16, 1977 -21, 1978 -18 and 1978 -25; and Storm Sewer Improvement 1978 -19 and 1978 -26; and Street Surfacing Improvement 1977 -14 and 1977 -17; and Public Utilities Water Hook -up and Sanitary Sewer Hook -ups - Confirm assessments. 1978 -17, 18, 19 are located on Irving Avenue; 1978 -25, 26 are located on James Circle; 1977 -15, 16, 17 are located on Unity in - the area of 69 Avenue North; 1977 -14 is located on 52nd Avenue North in the area of Drew Avenue North; 1977 -21 is located on Lakeside in - the area of Twin Lake Avenue. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3 September 25, 1978 1. Certifying Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs ! - Confirm assessments. m. Certifying Delinquent Public Utility Accounts Confirm assessments. n.. Certifying Delinquent Noxious Weed Cutting Accounts Confirm assessments. 4 10. planning Commission Items (8 :30 p.m.); a. Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington for site and building plan approval for a wholesale distribution center on 'the C -2 property located at 4455 - 68th Avenue North. The application was recommended for approval at - the September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. b. Application No 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry for a special use permit for a home occupation 'to conduct porcelain art instructions at 6914 Lee Avenue North. The application was recommended for approval at the September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. c. Application No. 78057 submitted by Blumentals Architectural, Inc. for a site and building plan approval for an addition 'to `the existing industrial building at 1601 - 67 Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its September 14, 1978 meeting. d. Application No. 78059 submitted by Robert Fosdick for site and building plan approval for the conversion of an abandoned filling station for an eat -in and carry -out restaurant at 5001 Drew Avenue North. The applica- tion was recommended for approval at - the September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. 11. Ordinances a Amending Chapter 8 of the Health and Sanitation Ordinance - Ordinance is a first reading and is presented for the purpose of changing Health and Sanitation Ordinance No. 8- 108.01. b. Amending Chapter 35 of - the City Ordinances Ordinance is a first reading and is presented for the purpose of changing 35 -400 (2) of - the City Ordinances. The City Attorney is prepared - to comment on legal ramifications. 12. Discussion Items; a. Community Development Block Grants Recommended programs and citizen participation. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4 September 25, 1978 b. Renewal of Rental Dwelling License for Bennie Rozman for the Brookdale Ten Apartment Complex - License was temporarily extended - through August 1978. Mr. Rozman agreed 'to meet certain priorities in fixing - the property. Inspections have been made based on those priorities. 13. Reconvene Special Budget Meeting 14. Licenses 15 Adjournment W „ past and present members of the brooklyu Center Jaypees, do hereby urge } Y the Brooklyn Center City Council to grant an additional. W,OOQ contract for services to CRAP. Under the current situation, the city has realized a cash in hand advan- Cage of .135,000 from the insurance, will realize a cash in has4 advantage. sw rox imately $100,000 from the sale of the property on ,Brooklyn. ;an will be-la, position to collect tax revenue can the property after it is 80� d;; whereas, if :the fire had not occurred, the city would have title to the lid oad' building., "taut would. not have the cash in hand option as bath the land and buildixa would 2aave " been used by Cam' for an indefinite period of time. Considering the fact that the :Brooklyn Center Jaycees do" "mod over 6,000 h ours labor and 2,500 of chapter funds to the renovation. of the buil for Cam, wre do ' llow CEAP a fair return'of not feel it unreasonable to expect the City Council to a the insurance money to enable them to again conduct theirbusiness., eapeoially in view of the cash in hand advantage that the city now enjoys. zc 4 ~ t a r R a 7 3 X �a 4 AL Ax z L Z 0 0 !n P .. -j We past and present members of the ;Brooklyn Center Jaycees, do hereby urge the Brooklyn Center City Council to grunt an additional $40,000 contract for sorvic s, to CEAI'. wader the current situation, the city has realized a cash in hand advaa- tage of $85,000 from the insurance, will realize `a cash in hand advantage of rax- imately $104,000 from the sale of the property oa Brooklyn Blvd and will be in, a position to collect tax revenue on the property after it is sold; whereas, if the t fine bad not occurred, the city would have title to the Land and building, but would not have the cash, in hand option as 'both the land and buildia$ wo lt3 . have been used by.0 AP for an indefinite period of time. Considering the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over,6AO06, hours of labor and $2 of chapter funds to the renovation of the bUil ding for CHAP, do not feel. it unreasonable to expect the City Council to allow CRAP a fair m of the insurance money to e nable them to again conduct their1buslneas,, e� .in r view of the cash in hand advantage that the city now enjoys. I 31 r ° t �. 5' u r z 3 F Pam E f . x, a We as past and present members of the Brooklyn Center J, yc es, ;d0 Oreby urge the Brooklyn Center City Council to grant an additional $(}`contract for services to - CEAPO tinder the current situation, the city has realized a cash in hence edvan. tage of $85POOO from 't the insurance, will realize a cash in hand 'advantage of approx imately $100j000 from the sale of the property on Brooklyn. Blvd :and will be ire a position to collect tax revenue on the property after it is sold; whereas if the .µ fire had not occurred, the city would have title to the land and building} but would not have the cash in hand option as both the land and building would, have beau' t used by CEAP,for an indefinite period of time, T Considering the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over 6 fours of labor and 500, of chapter funds to the renovation of the 'building for ,, Ve. do y not feed; it unreasonable to expect the City Council to allow CW a fir of the insurance mo y to enable them to again conduct their "business, e dally in vier e ca in hand advantage that the city now enjoy Q ho. Z ar l0 01 � max" � r 4 t" 3 -- q d r x 1� y y, w ".rte ,a..et nr: Vn a :, ,,.xu id :,w• w..+m,. t.wr,..pyiM t�fys}�a�n.eurwip6k,m �, �;y WZ spui��i ..gyp �'".5 n7a��4A��.Fa j��F�t� �M! `i r iO r t E �m We paste and. presenv members of the BrOo lyn Cen.•ter nn: �►�' �+� K '� ' a the Proo .yn Center �'ity Counci,i� to gra�nt.'an addittAZ�asl, �� +�i,Q�A aC�t��raf�t for to C�aAP� IRA, r the current situatiar� the city has real a cash �� k�and edvan�. e of $85,000 from the will raaJJze a casks ire hand sdvantaf6 of approx" , tely $100 from the �al of the prcpe rt�F on x�t�oc�,.{,lyn Blvd and wrkll. tai: in a o t on to collect tea: revenue on the property after t i� sojd� �.�ae rea v if the firs: hIad not occurred, the city; would. have title to the; land and btuil.din R but would not have the cash in hand option as both the land and building, would have been user by CF14 for an inclef' .rtt.te period of time, Considering, tlse'facG that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over 6,a0ta hours of P, labox an� , 7 <? of chap , i Fx :tiia to the renovation a,f the building for CEAP we do � w '. not feel it unreasonable to ex9ect the City Council to si.�.aw G4A�' a fair return of � a � the insurance money to eaahle them to again conduct their busIneOP especial.l.y in III &� " view of the cash in band advantage that the cit' now ens o `a, G >4 k & j 4 r_ 1,Ak �E- t F , l - - - a � - .°.err- ........- . a.-..... n.....- e.- �.. ....e.. s-......... n-.-. r, �.-°...- ..- ....e- .r..e+ra..... -.... in- ..- -.r .e++- +n -rn.n. -�« e-- .r�nn.. --.. +. n...+... �. w^- �+ w, n,+ +. m+ .--+-.—.+-.-• +nn- .�..t.+r�}»•- rYn..,n•..- � a „ �n•'-- w.. ��n, r+, n'�Tw- H++r,•.r.a+reTr�•,^.c'.. y Y Weas past and present members of the Brooklyn Center Jaycees, do hereby urge the Brooklyn Center City Council to grant an additional $40,0 contract for services to CEAY. Under the current situation the city has realized a cash in }nand advaaz tage of $85,000 from the insurance, will realize a cash in hand advantage of a ►rox- imate 1.00„000 from thy: sale of the property on Brooklyn Blvd and will be itL a position to collect tax revenue on the property after it is sold; whereas, i.f,the fire had not occurred.. the city would have title to the land and building,: but Y would not have the cash, in hand option as both the land and building would° have been used by CEAP for an indefinite period of time. Considering the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over 6,000 Ours or labor and 2,500 of chapter funds to the renovation of the building i'or , do ti not feel, it unreasonable to expect the City Council to allow CEAF a'f .-r retU of the insurranee money to enable them to again conduct their business, e` In view of the cash in hand advantage that the city now enjoys. a c k W t 'ti<C t t r d J yr We,as past and present members of the Brooklyn Center Jayp6es, do hereby urge s ' the Brooklyn Center City Council to grant an additional $40,0W contract for services to CEA'a Under the current situation the city has realized a. c h An hand advan- t4ge of $85,00 from the insurance, will realize a cash in hand advantage !of p rox lZately $100 from the sale of the property on Brook lve� 'a�ad X11 be . in .a M 'po sit ian to collect tax revenue cn the property after it sold; whereas: i f the } fire had not occurred, the city s-oula have title to the land rind building., but `xv would not have the cash in hand option as both the land and building vould have been r" used by CE.A,P for an indefinite period of time. Considering the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over 6 OW hours of labor and q S2 500 o f chapt funds to the renovation of the 'building for W C, ,dq not feel it unreasonable to expect the City Council, to al iOw CUP a fair retorn of the insurances money to enable them to again, conduct their' business, ej�,pe cially i u View of the cash in land advantage that the city now enjoys. 1r t,. r° i We,as past and present members of the Brooklyn Center Jaycees, do hereby urge the Brooklyn Center City Council to grant an additional. $40,000 contract for services to CM, . Uader the current situation. the city has realized a cash in hst ad advan- tage of $85, from the insurance, will realiz a cash its hand advantages of approx imaately $100,1300 from the sale of the property on Brooklyn Blvd axe& will be .in� a ' position to collect tax revenue on the property after it is sold; whereas, If tie f. fire had not occurred,' the city would have title t the land and building but would not have the cash in hand option as both the land and building would have bean used by ;CE.AP for an indefinite period of time. Considering the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over 6 of, labor and $2, of chapter funds to the renovation of the building f'or CIAP "," v do not feel it unreasonable to expect the City Council to allow CNAP a of } the insurance money to enable them to again conduct their business' eap ecial3z in vier of - the cash In d advantage that the city now enjoys. , ( )I IM 11111 2-:2) r a P+ A ,r 4 f r I I v We,as past and present members of the Brooklyn Center Jaypes, do hereby urge the Brooklyn Center City Council to grant an additional $rte contract for services to CEAP. Under the current situation the city has realized a cash in hand . advan_ 'age of` 35,400 from the insurance, will realize a cash in hand advantage of,enrox im tely $104,400 From the salve of the property on Brooklyn Blvd and will be iti a position to collect tax revenue on the property after- it is sold; Vbereas,. if the fire had not occurred, the city would have title to the land and building,, Bub would not have the cash in hand option as both the land and building would' haver; been used by CEAP for an indefinite period of time. Considering the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over 6 o OW hours of t .. labor and 'P,500 of chapter funds to the renovation of the building for C90, we do not feel it unreasonable to expect the City Council to allow CEAP a fair rettira of t aurance; money to enable them to again._ conduct their 'business, e`special.ly i v ear f 'the ash in hazard advantage that the city now enjoys. 1 1 4" ' . ' Y.4A fi { Y R k w °t S r, z f , i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBER TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING AREA CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is cooperating with Hennepin County and thirty -six units of local government to constitute an Urban County under the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended in 1977; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Program regulations establish requirements for the provision of citizen participation; and WHEREAS, Urban Hennepin County in response to the program regulations is establishing five Citizen Advisory Committees, one within each Urban County Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee's primary responsibility is to review appropriately Community Development Block Grant Program issues within its member area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center appoint to serve as a member on the Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee which includes the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ! OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA i REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, 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, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Brad Hoffman. Mayor Nyquist explained Councilmember Lhotka would not be present and was excused. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Swedberg of Lutheran Church of the Master. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 28, 1978 Motion by Counciimember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of August 28, 1978 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. OPE FORUM Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of the Open Forum explaining Mary Meline, 540067th Avenue North, had asked to be recognized at the Open Forum. Mrs. Meline explained she was interested in having a stop sign placed at 69th and Perry for the following reasons: 1) There has-been an increase in traffic on 69th due to the new homes in the area, 2) There is heavy traffic between 3 :30 p.m. and 7 :30 p.m. when many children are crossing the street in order to return from school and go to the park, 3) Many drivers do not adhere to the 30 mile per hour speed limit in Brooklyn Center because two blocks from this area in Brooklyn Park the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. Mrs. Meline explained it was her understanding that since 69th Avenue was the same as County Road 130, the County would have to have a recommendation from the Brooklyn Center City Council before stop signs would be placed. The Director of Public Works explained speed limits on the road had been set by the County. The County sets the speed limit as determined by the speed at which 85% of the traffic on that particular road travels. The Director of Public Works indicated he had spoken with the traffic engineers at the County concerning this request, The County Engineers indicated they would begin a traffic study in the area to determine whether or not the area meets the criteria for stop signs. In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Public Works explained 9 -11 -78 -1- the most important factor in determining whether or not stop signs should be placed would be the traffic study. A petition put forth by residents of the area gives an expression of the people in the neighborhood but technically the petition would not have much bearing on the County's decision. The County abides by certain - criteria in deciding whether or not to install stop signs. The traffic study will involve a traffic and pedestrian count, The City Manager indicated the City would keep in contact with the County and Brooklyn Park concerning this issue. Mayor Nyquist inquired if anyone in the audience wished to be recognized for the Open Forum; there being none, the Open Forum was closed. PERFORMANCE BONDS There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to release a $1,000 bond submitted by Northbrook Alliance Church of 6240 Aldrich Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unani- mously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to reduce the performance agreements for the following projects in the following amounts Reduce a $7,500 cash escrow to $1,000 as submitted by Dr. Robert Schell for Schell Clinic, 412 66th Avenue North. Reduce a $10,000 bond to $5,000 as submitted by Harstad -Todd Construction for 7- Eleven Store, 413 66th Avenue North. Reduce a $6,000 cash escrow to $1,000 as submitted by Johnny's, Inc. for Pilg - °im Gleaners, 6850 Brooklyn Boulevard. Reduce a $7,500 bond to $2,000 as submitted by Bermel -Smaby Realty, Inc. for Bermel Smaby office building, at 6500 Brooklyn Boulevard. Reduce a $6,000 cash escrow to $1,000 as submitted by Berwin and Kruger, Inca of Gallery of Homes, 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard. Reduce a $40,000 cash escrow to $5,000 as submitted by John D. Sheehan, Jr. for Holiday Inn, 1501 Freeway Boulevard. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler; Fignar, and Scott. Voting against:. none. The motion passed unanimously, The Director of Planning and Inspection explained to a representative of Gallery of Homes _a memo would be sent to the businesses explaining the performance agreement releases or seductions. APPOINTMENTS The City Manager explained the Community Education and Services Advisory Council requested City Councils to appoint a City Council member to represent the seven municipalities that make up District #281 The present Advisory Council recommends the appointment of Verne Baker, a Council member from Robbinsdale because of his interest in and experience on the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to recommend the appointment of Verne Baker to the Community Education and Services Advisory Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 9 -11 -78 -2- Councilmember Scott indicated she had received a letter from the Brooklyn Center Community Education Council asking the City Council to appoint a City Council representative to the Brooklyn Center Community Education Council. Council- member Scott indicated she would be willing to serve again on this Council. There was a motion by Mayor Nyquist and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to recommend the appointment of Councilmember Scott to the Brooklyn Center Community Education Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City anager asked that the item concerning the appointment of a City repre -- sentative or the Citizens Participation Committee for Urban County be deferred until the discussion on Community Development Block 'Grants was taken up later in the meeting. There was :a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the final list of additional election replacement judges. Voting ' in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion- passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS The City Manager introduced a resolution approving the Minnesota Department of Transportation plans and specifications for construction of bridges and approaches on PI -94 at 53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North. The project constitutes the first phase of freeway construction in the City of Brooklyn Center. Bids are scheduled to be opened for the project on September 22, 1978, with construction to sta in the fall, This resolution is being introduced concurrently with a secon resol tion establishing Street Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No o 978 -38 and Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1 78 -39 and ordering preparation of plans and specifications. The second resolution provides for the authorization to begin preparation of' plans and speci ficatio s for the upgrading of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street to Penn Avenue North. The City of Minneapolis is in agreement with the upgrading and is proceeding towards the initiation of the projects by the Minneapolis City Council. It has been informally agreed with the Minneapolis City Engineer that the plans for this project should be prepared under the supervision of the Brooklyn Center City Engineer with the cost of preparing plans to be divided between the two municipalities in 'proportion to their estimated construction costs. An agreement has been prepared which provides for this division of cost in the plan preparation. The Director of Public Works explained the contract indicates construction must begin before April 16. Depending on which contractor does the work, the project might begin in the fall but would have to begin before April, 16. The completion date is set as 90 working gays after the starting date, The Director of Public Works explained there would be public hearings held on the project. The purpose for the resolution at this time is to establish the project. Councilmember Kuefler asked the Director of Public Works to check on the property belonging to Mr. Gerry Tayler of 512 53rd Avenue North because it was Council- member Fignar's understanding that this property did not have City water available to it. The Director of Public Works indicated he would check and if water was not presently available to this property, action would be initiated to make water available. 9 -11 -78 -3- RESOLUTION NO,. 78 -195 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES AND APPROACHES ON T.H. 94 AT 53RD AVENUE NORTH AND 57TH AVENUE NORTH 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, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -196 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -38 AND CURB & GUTTER & SIDEWALK. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -39, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City- Manager introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into an agreement between the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis providing for the preparation of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of 53rd Avenue North between 4th Street North and Penn Avenue North. The Director of Public lArorks explainer) the City of Brooklyn Center would be the lead City in drawing up plans for this project. RESOLUTION NO , 78 -197 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS REGARDING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 53RD AVENUE NORTH FROM 4TH STREET NORTH TO PENN AVENUE NORTH 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, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City Manager recommended a re olution approving plans and specifications for Utility Contract No. 1978 -0 and directing advertisement for bids. Included in this contract are Project Nos. 1978 -4 and 5, which provide utilities to the Real Estate 10 office building on Brooklyn Boulevard at the north corporate limits 9 -11 -78 -4- of the City, and Project No. 1978 -31, 1978 -32 and 1978-35 which provide utility service for further development of the Ponds Development along Unity Avenue between 69th and 73rd Avenue North. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -198 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVE - MENT PROJECTS NO. 1978 -4 AND 1978 -31; SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -5; STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -32 AND 1978 -35, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (UTILITY CONTRACT 1978 -0) 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, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution establishing Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 and establishing Central Park Grading Project No. 1978 -41 and establishing Shingle Creek Trailways Project No. 1978 -42 and "ordering preparation of plans and sepcifications for all three projects. - The project provides for the first phase of the Central Park development program, provides for the general grading of the Central Park area for which the City is receiving a LAWCON grant for 75% of the construction costs, and comprehends the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle trails along Shingle Creek from County Road 10 to County Road 130 for which the City has received a'LAWCON grant for 90% of the construction cost. The Director of Public Works explained the LAWCON grant will not pay for the excavation of the creek but the City will receive money for grading work and transporting of the material removed from the creek. The Director of Public Works explained there was a person employed by the City who had done _ excavating work and was familiar with the operation of the equipment. The City will use the cost of grading Central Park as soft match for the grant. In response to questions from the Council regarding possible 'increased flood chances as a result of the relocation of the creek, the Director of Public' Works indicated the relocation of the creek would not increase the flood problem and may in fact lower the likelihood of flooding. He further explained a flood study was now being conducted for that area to determine flood insurance costs. RESOLUTION NO 78 -199 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SHINGLE CREEK RELOCATION PROJECT NO 1978 -40, CENTRAL PARK GRADING PROJECT NO. 1978 -41, AND SHINGLE CREEK- TRAILWAYS PROJECT NO. 1978 -42, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 9 -11 -78 -5- of the total salt is being leeched from the mixture, which is equivalent to approxt- mateiy $I 500 to $2, 000 per year. The salt storage building would be the first phase of this capital improvement. Additionally, in future years, a poured concrete storage area would be added. A mezzanine on the north wall of the present garage has also been suggested for installation in future years. The Director of Finance explained the capital projects fund had been started in 1968 to provide for major capital outlays and /or to reduce capital outlay debt. The sources of the fund include ad valorem taxes, surpluses of other City funds, issuances of bonds, interest earnings of fund, and other sources. It is recommended this particular improvement be financed out of the capital improvement funds in the amount of $58,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the appropriation of $58,000 from the capital improvement fund for the street materials storage building; Voting in favor: :Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Special Budget meeting was recessed at 10:00 p.m. and was reconvened at 10:15 p.m. The Detached Worker Program Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained that with the anticipated demise of the Federal CETA program prior to January 1, 1979, the City will no longer be able to support the Detached Worker Program and no appropriation has been made for 1979. If funding from CETA is extended, it is recommended the program be extended. Additionally, the City Manager commented the Detached Worker Program would have priority if only a specified number of CETA positions could be retained by the City. At this point, it is not the intention of the City Manager to cut regularly funded City positions to save Detached Worker positions. The Council expressed concern over the elimination of the program. In response the City Manager indicated if it was the Council's wish, the Detached Worker could be funded from the Contingency Fund if CETA funds were not available in 1979. The City Manager asked the Council to give consideration to the Detached Worker Program in light of the fact that to insure a consistent future for the Detached Worker Program, money from the municipal budget would have to be allocated. If'the City Council wishes to allocate money from the municipal budget to continue this CETA program, the Council should give consideration to other areas which might be reduced or terminated. The City Manager again stated it was not his recommendation to cut other City positions to save the Detached Worker Program. Discussion ensued as to the use of the Detached Worker Program by the Police Department, It was decided to defer further discussion on the Detached Worker Program until other departmental budgets have been considered. The Police Department Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained because of severe budget restraints and because of the high cost of replacing police officers, no additions to the 9 -13 -78 -6- ORDINANCE - First Reading The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding carports and canopies for a first reading. He stated the definitions of carport and canopy in the amended ordinance should prevent misinterpretation Motion by Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 35 relative to canopies and carports. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS The City Manager stated Council members had received a copy of the Inventory of Human Services as compiled by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. He questioned the Council as to whether or not they might be interested in inviting a representative of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to a Council meeting to explain the Inventory of Human Services. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to recommend arrangements be made for a representative of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to appear at a future City Council meeting to elaborate on the Inventory of Human Services, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, The City Manager stated an invitation had been received from Mr. John Boland, Chairman of the Metropolitan Council, to discuss issues relating to communities and the Metropolitan Council at the Maple Grove City Hall on September 28, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. He stated the invitation had been extended to local elected officials and administrative officers in order that they might have a chance to discuss issues of concern with the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council, This is an informational item and no action was taken, The City Manager referred Council members to a memorandum which they had received from Mr. Brad Hoffman concerning an explanation of projects possible with Community Development Block Grant money. Mr. Hoffman briefly summarized the memorandum stating the extent to which Brooklyn Center can identify needs and establish goals to meet the needs of low and moderate income people compatible with federal philos- ophy will be the primary determinate of the projects in the City's Community Develop- . ment program. He indicated there were four areas the City might want to consider: housing needs such as the rehabilitation of existing housing or rent- subsidies, park development needs in certain parks, physical barrier projects which would benefit handicapped persons, and administrative costs. Mr. Hoffman stated other areas are possible if the Council has specific projects in mind. The City Manager stated Mr. Hoffman's memorandum had indentified certain possibilities He explained there is considerable latitude to shape the program as the City sees fit. The City Manager elaborated that certain areas require intense administration such as the processing of applications for rent subsidies, whereas other programs would not require an increase in administrative time nor would they require additional personnel. 9 -11 -78 -7- At this time there was also discussion on the appointment of a City representative for the Citizen's Participation Committee for Urban County. The City Council concurred it would be advantageous to appoint a Commission member as the City representative for the Citizen's Participation Committee. Mr. Hoffman indicated he would check whether or not a Commissioner would be an acceptable appoint - ment according to the guidelines developed for appointment to the Citizen's Participation Committee for Urban County. Councilmember Kuefler indicated a desire to involve all of the City Commissions in some way with the planning process for projects for Community Development Block Grants. It was decided to defer the public hearing on the proposed 1979 City Budget until after the Planning Commission items had been considered. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Application No. 78015 submitted by Independence Ten for a preliminary plat approval for the property at 7240 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 24, 1978 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the need for preliminary plat approval is the result of a condition of approval for Application No. 77026 which rezoned from R -1 to C -1, a triangular piece of property located northerly of Shingle Creek and easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Fignar was excused at 8:15 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the northern boundary of the property is the municipal City limits between the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park while the southeasterly property line was originally established according to the center line of Shingle Creek before the creek was realigned. He pointed out this meandering boundary line is also the northwest boundary line of the Wingard Addition which consists of several lofts, and one of the purposes of the replatting was to clarify the boundary situation since the present creek is to the northwest of that line. He explained meetings had been held with the property owners in the Wingard Addition and the replatting of the area had been accomplished with the cooperation of the property owners in the Wingard Addition, Councilmember Fignar returned at 8 :18 p.m. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 78015. There was no one attending the meeting to speak on the application. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Application No 78015 Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78015 submitted by Independence Ten for preliminary plat approval for the property at 7240 Brooklyn 9-11-78 -8- I- Boulevard subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer, 2, The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3, An appropriate easement shall be provided adjacent to Shingle Creek for purposes of environmental protection and a public recreational access (such as trailways & bikeways) as determined by the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, The City Manager introduced Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy for a variance from Section 35 -400 to permit a house addition with an approximate 10 foot encroachment into the sideyard at 5946 Colfax Avenue North, The E Planning Commission recommended denial at its August 24, 1978 meeting. I The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the addition requested would encroach approximately 10 feet into the 25 foot side corner setback required for corner lots. He reviewed a transparency showing the location and the configuration of the property in question and stated the applicant has submitted a letter, which • is on file, explaining her request and outlining her justifications for the variance. f He explained the applicant notes that a patio door in the sideyard of a split entry home has, in essence, become the main entrance to that home. He further stated she points out that weather conditions often make this entryway hazardous, and she contends a hardship would exist if she was not per_ mitted to construct the enclosed entryway. He pointed out the applicant also contends the construction of an enclosed entryway would make this entrance safe for access to the home during all kinds of weather; provide a barrier against the elements which would make the home more energy efficient; and afford privacy during the evening hours of darkness from those passing by on the street. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained staff had researched the number of substandard corner lots created after December 19, 1957. He reported the research undertaken indicates there are approximately 47 substandard corner lots of record created after this 1957 date, including the applicant's property. He further reported the research indicates the December 19, 1957 date used in the current ordinance language had to do with subdivision requirements establishing 90 foot wide corner lots as a standard. He added the side corner yard minimum setback requirement was also changed from 15 feet to 25 feet around that same time. He stated the rationale for the 1976 amendment was that the ordinance was working a hardship on properties of record prior to 1958 that could have been built upon using the old side corner setback requirement of 15 feet, He explained it also • seems clear this amendment was not intended to address all substandard corner lots, but only those that were created under the old ordinance standards. 9 -11 -78 -9- The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated he had suggested to Mrs. Bovy possible alternative ways to deal with the problems she had indicated. He suggested a better use of the front area, a use of the garage entrance, or the use of a canopy over the structure in question. The Director of Planning and Inspection also reviewed the Planning Commission's discussion of draft ordinance language which had been presented to the Commission regarding side corner yard setbacks. The Planning Commission recommended that the present ordinance language be retained because the current 25 foot setback is reasonable and should be maintained. The Planning Commission did not recommend a change of the ordinance language. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the question before the Council with respect to amending the current ordinance to allow all substandard corner lots to utilize the 15 foot setback requirement is whether or not the current 25 foot side corner setback is reasonable or desirable. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the fact that setback regulations had been established to, among other things, keep dwellings farther back from dust, noise and fumes of the street; to add to the attractiveness and comfort of a residential district; to provide for aesthetics, uniformity, open space for light, air, view and safety; reduce fire hazards; provide space for off street parking and provide visibility., especially in the area of street corners. Finally, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained the Commission, in considering this application drew parallels between the Hamilton appeal and this application due to the issue of reasonableness of setback standards. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on Application No. 78047,- .Josephine Bovy of 5946 Colfax Avenue North, as applicant, addressed the Council Mrs Bovy indicated the suggestions made by the Director of Planning and Inspection as to alternatives for dealing with the problem, were unacceptable to her. She stated she didn't feel it was fair, in this day of equal rights, to be prohibited from constructing the addition with a 15 foot setback rather than a 25 foot setback because others were allowed to construct with only a 15 foot setback. Councilmember Kuefler explained all standard size lots are also subject to the 25 foot setback so what appears to her to be inequality was in actuality not. Mr. Richard Sutton of 6001 Bryant Avenue North spoke in favor of granting the variance to Mrs. Bovy. He stated the way the home had been constructed left her subject to the ice and snow problem in the entryway in question. He indicated L the builder had made a mistake and Mrs. Bovy, when buying the home, was not aware of setback requirements. Georgia Longtin, formerly of 906 60th Avenue North, spoke in favor of granting the variance to Mrs. Bovy. She explained that because the corner is wide open on that piece of property, the snow blows and drifts and makes the entryway extremely dangerous. She indicated a patio entrance is absolutely necessary on the property, Dolores Hastings of 5813 Aldrich Avenue North spoke in favor of granting the variance to Mrs. Bovy. She explained she was not a neighbor of Mrs. Bovy's but frequently walked by the property and was aware of the problem with the entryway in question. She stated she had often seen the stairs covered with solid ice 9-11-78 -10 and believed a covering of some type was necessary. She stated much of the problem stemmed from the fact that the entryway faced the north. Mrs Tony Brunello, of 6725 63rd Avenue North, spoke in favor of granting the variance to Mrs. Bovy. She explained she went to the Bovy house frequently and indicated the entryway requested was necessary because it was not practical to open the garage door to enter the house nor to walk through the snow around the house to the other entryway o There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar_ to close the public hearing on Application No. 78047. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to comment on what constitutes a'mere inconvenience as opposed to a hardship. The City Attorney clarified that hardship means more than economic hardship. As related to real estate, a hardship is a circumstance which detracts or removes from the value of the real estate. For example, a water table might be too high to put in a basement, or the soil might be of such a type which would render inserting footings impossible. By contrast, a mere inconvenience might necessitate a slight change in life style but would not qualify as a hardship. The City Attorney further stated if the variance is allowed on this property, variances on all other similar properties would also have to be allowed. Councilmember Fignar indicated he appreciated the problem as presented by Mrs. Bovy and believed the problem might best be dealt with through an ordinance change. He explained he would seek a denial of the present variance request but suggested that it be dealt with through an ordinance change. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to deny Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy. As part of the discussion following the motion, Councilmember Fignar requested the City Manager to research changing the present ordinance language to allow substandard lots of "record after 1957 to build with a 15 foot setback rather than a 25 foot setback. Councilmember Scott explained that in 1957 the City changed many of its setback requirements. At the time the Council passed the present ordinance language, it was the feeling of the Council that they would be hard pressed to tell a person who was allowed to build with a 15 foot setback before 1957 and came to the Council after 1957 asking to build an addition or a garage that the person would now have to build using the setback requirement of 25 feet. The Council felt this would be causing an undue hardship if the Council required the person. to build at a 25 foot setback when their home was built with only a 15 foot setback. K appreciated Mrs Bov 's desire to improve Councilmember uefler stated he appreci to . rove the y P property. He noted it was unfortunate the home wasn't built with a different layout. He concurred with other Council members and with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the application for a variance because the application does 9 -11 -78 -11- not satisfy variance requirements. He questioned whether or not changing the setback requirements for substandard corner lots would jeopardize the 25 foot setback on standard size corner lots. He asked that the City Manaqer and the City Attorney research that question, Mayor Nyquist noted he also was appreciative of the problem. He indicated he would' like to find a way to help the applicant but he did feel denial of the variance' request was in order. The City Manager explained the City does not presently approve the design of homes nor does the City have intention of approving the design of homes. People choose to build or buy particular property on their own. The issue before the Council is whether or not the 25 foot setback requirement for corner lots is reasonable and necessary. He indicated the frame of reference should not be a particular property but should be the general question of the setback requirements. Josephine Bovy noted she had no idea what the ordinance was when she purchased the property. She explained she was attempting to correct a human error. The City Attorney suggested as part of the motion, reference to the Planning Commission's reasons for.denial should be noted. The motion was amended by Councilmember Fignar, and Councilmember Scott, as seconder, concurred deny Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy because the application does not meet the standards for variances contained in the City Ordinances particularly with respect to uniqueness and hardship. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. As a follow up to this action, the City Attorney was asked to research the legal ramifications of changing the ordinance requirements to allow substandard lots of record after December 19, 1957, to build with a 15 foot setback while maintaining the setback requirements of 25 feet on standard size corner lots. The City Manager explained to Mrs. Bovy an ordinance change would be considered at the next Council meeting, September 25, 1978. The City Manager introduced Application No. 78051 submitted by Brookdale Car Wash for a special use permit, and site and building plan approval for a canopy addition to the Brookdale Car Wash at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard. ` The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 24, 1978 meeting. He noted the City was pleased with the excellent appearance maintained at the car wash by Mr. Stephen Graham. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the applicant proposes to add two canopy additions along the- west side of the existing Brookdale Car Wash located at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated the purpose of the canopies is to provide • screening from the sun and the elements for special wax jobs performed by the applicant. He noted each canopy would be attached to the existing building and cover approximately 38 feet where it is attached to the building and extend approxi- 9 -11 -78 -12- mately 14 feet outward and be tapered down approximately 13 feet at the outer most edge. He explained the canopy will have a canvas cover and be supported by structural gray aluminum columns. He reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated gasoline service stations and auto washes are special uses in the C -2 district, and, therefore, the special use permit is also being requested in conjunction with this addition. He stated he felt the applicant does meet the standards for a special use permit. The Director of Planning and Inspection also pointed out the applicant has undertaken many site improvements with respect to landscaping and plantings without any urging on the part of the City. He further stated that these improvements have substantially enhanced the area. Councilmember Kuefler indicated concern about other gas or service stations doing something similar which would be less likely to be maintained. He expressed concern over the potential for eyesores in this type of structure. Councilmember Kuefler noted he was not concerned with the present applicant but was concerned overall. The Director of Planning and Inspection replied he did not feel there would be a problem. The City Attorney noted a special use permit may not be necessary on this type of application but the issua is rather, should the addition be allowed or should it not be allowed There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78051 submitted by Mr. Stephen Graham for the Brookdale Car Wash subject to the following conditions: 10 Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 78056 submitted by B &° G Realty, Inc. for a special use permit and site and building plan approval for a 100 unit motel to be located adjacent to and westerly of the recently approved Embers site on James Circle south of Freeway Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 24, 1978 meeting, • The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the special use permit is required for a C -2 use in the I -1 district and is provided by Section 35 -330 (3) (f) . He reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property in question, and stated the applicant had indicated that expansion of the proposed motel on the northerly portion of this site or a freestanding restaurant located in the south- 9-11-78 -13- easterly portion of this site are being contemplated for future development. He noted the applicant had requested deferral of certain site improvements for the area contemplated as a potential restaurant site. He noted it is recommended a rolled bituminous curbing, rather than a concrete B612 curb and gutter, be permitted in the area proposed for the restaurant site. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the parking plans and noted the n handicapped site plans show total of 118 parking spaces including four a dicapped sp aces He indicated the parking accommodations were six spaces over what ordinance required. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the question of a live -in or housekeeping unit, stating it was likely the issue would be considered in the future. The Director of Planning and Inspection commented briefly on the grading, utility and berming plans, and landscaping. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained wood mulch treatment had been recommended by the Planning Commission but the applicant preferred to use a stone chip material. The Planning Commission agreed to the use of stone chip material, Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on Application No. 78056. The applicant was present but did not wish to make additional comments. There was no one else to speak on the application. In response to questions from Council, the applicant explained the exterior finish of the building would be a stucco type, Swiss chalet exterior. In response to concerns raised by the Council about the durability f this type of finish the applicant explained a similar exterior Y Yp pP p had been utilized in Wisconsin since 1971 and they have had no problems with this type of exterior finish. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 78056. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler - to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78056 with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, deleting the condition that the property be subdivided by plat or registered land survey prior to the issuance of permits because the platting has been taken care of. In further discussion of the motion, the City Attorney suggested the condition as recommended by the Planning Commission concerning platting should be left in as a condition of approval. The mover and the seconder approved the suggestion made by the City Attorney. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No, 78056 submitted by B & G Realty, Inc. subject to the following conditions 9-11-78 -14- 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. • 2. Site, grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee -(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of site improvements 4. Special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 5. The permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, regulations, and violation thereof, 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 MFPA Standard No. 13. 9, Smoke detectors shall be installed in all sleeping units as per Minnesota Building Code Requirement. 10. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer, 11. Plat approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 12. Concrete curb and gutter around the area proposed for the future restaurant site shall be deferred for a three year period and a rolled bituminous curb shall be provided during that time. 13. The area proposed for a future restaurant site shall be maintained with a viable turf; other landscape treatments in this area are deferred for a three year period. 14. Plan approval does not include approval for an outside live -in unit as indicated on the plans; this matter will be the subject of further review and discussion. 15. Three 2 -1/2" trees and a berm in the area deferred for improvement, shall be provided as approved by the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 9 -11 -78 -15- ORDINANCE The City Manager explained several different wordings are presented for consideration in changing Health and Sanitation Ordinance No. 8- 108.01. He explained that Mr. Tom Heenan, City Sanitarian, was present to answer any i questions the Council might have regarding this issue. The City Manager briefly reviewed the three possibilities for Health and Sanitation Ordinance No. 8- 108.01. Mr. Heenan clarified the term itinerant food establishment in response to questions from the Council. The City Sanitarian explained changing the ordinance to allow social or service agencies to prepare food other than readily perishable foods in their homes would essentially eliminate control over the source of the food. In response to questions from the Council, Mikki Sevig, a representative of the Mrs. Jaycees, explained the organization's request to be allowed to prepare nonperishable food in their home. She indicated the Mrs Jaycees would need approximately three itinerant food establishment licenses per calendar year in order to accommodate their needs. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to prepare the amended ordinance using the amended definition of social or service agency for a first reading at the next Council meeting. Inserted in the blank in the amended ordinance should be the number three, itinerant food establishment licenses per calendar year. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: ' none. The motion passed unanimously. Mikki Sevig asked for clarification of the motion as it relates to itinerant food establishment licenses. The City Manager explained, it was his interpretation, an organization could be granted a total of three itinerant food establishment licenses per calendar year regardless of what type of food was to be sold, Mrs. Sevig explained she had misunderstood the language and felt that three itinerant food establishment licenses per calendar year would be inadequate to meet the needs of the Mrs. Jaycees. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to reconsider the motion just passed because of a misunderstanding concerning the interpretation of the ordinance language. The City Attorney was directed to draw up ordinance language which would address the problem of the interpretation of three itinerant food establishment licenses per calendar year. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM The City Manager introduced Frankie Francel of the Northwest YMCA to present information on the Detached Worker Program and its operation in Brooklyn Center. Ms. Frances explained the program had been operational. in Brooklyn Center for four years. She indicated the main advantages of the program were kids were kept in the community and workers were able to work in all aspects of a kid's life. She stated the workers deal with the kids and their families, in the element I' I 9-11-78 -16- of the situation not from an office, Ms. Francel also explained the 24 hour crisis call and the benefit of that to the program. She noted kids often like to work with the program, probably because the program is detached and not under the auspices of an institution. As a result, there are not negative connotations to the program. Ms. Francel introduced the two workers for Brooklyn Center, Jan Daniels and Greg Brooks. Both Jan Daniels and Greg Brooks explained some of the work which they were involved with and their observations about the program and about its effectiveness Council. members indicated they had received a, positive reaction to the Detached Worker Program and felt the program was helpful in our community. The City Manager explained the last discussion item on the agenda would not be considered this evening because the final contract wording with Local #320 had not been approved. The City Manager suggested if the wording had been accepted by the special budget meeting of Wednesday, September 13, it was the City Manager's recommendation that - Council review the contract for approval. Councilmember Fignar was excused at 10:40 p.m, PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 1 979 CITY BUDGET The City Manager introduced the public hearing for the proposed 1979 City budget. He indicated the Director of Finance would briefly explain the budget and the hearing would be adjourned to be reconvened at the Special Budget meeting of September 13, 1978. Councilmember Fignar returned at 10:42 p.m. The Director of Finance briefly highlighted the main elements of the budget. He explained only 10 of every property tax dollar goes to the City. Included in the - budget documents for 1979 are general operations, pensions, and debt retirement. The 1979 proposed budget is $4,820,677 which is an approximate 15% increase over the 1978 budget. The increases are due to increases in insurance, salaries, pensions, street materials, inflation, and, capital outlay expenditures charged to Federal Revenue Sharing have also been increased. Capital outlay expenditures from Federal Revenue Sharing in 1978 amounted to $185,000, whereas in 1979, capital outlay expenditures from revenue sharing funds is proposed at $446,000. The Director of Finance explained that approximately 89% of the budget is proposed for general operations, 6% for pensions, and less than 5% for debt retirement. The Director of Finance noted in the past, unallocated departmental expense was carried in the City Manager's office budget whereas now, unallocated departmental expense is being placed in the "Other Category The Director of Finance explained revenues as listed in the 1979 proposed budget will be accumulated through property taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenue, service charges, court fines, and miscellaneous. 9 -11 -78 -17- Since the 1979 budget was proposed, the City has received notification that local government aid is higher than was anticipated Local government aid is listed in the 1979 proposed budget as 6 %. The City received notification that local government aid would be approximately 14% which would mean an $86,000 increase, Additionally, the legislature changed the formula for computing the assessed valuation on a homestead. The 1979 mill rate for the City of Brooklyn Center is proposed at 18,396 mills. If the $86,000 of anticipated local government aid is used against the tax levy, the mill rate would be reduced. In summary, the Director of Finance explained the budget document includes a summary, a revenue section, appropriation section, departmental appropriations, personnel schedules and supplemental data. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the public hearing on the proposed 1979 City budget and to reconvene the budget meeting at 7 :30 p.m. on September 13, 1978 in the Council Chambers. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. REVIEW OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The City Manager explained a special assessment hearing has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. September 25, 1978. The Director of Public Works noted the assessment costs are lower than the costs noted at the public hearing on the special assessments. LICENSES Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve the following list of licenses; BOWLING ALLEY LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Cirlce - Orange Julius of Brookdale 1396 Brookdale Center GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Hollies Rubbish Service 2109 Lowry Ave. No. • 9 -11 -78 -18- NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Kirby Jensen 6901 Logan Ave. No. Brookdale Ford 2500 County Rd 10 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, ADJOU There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:25 p.m City Clerk Mayor i 9 -11 -7$ -19- r MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met for a special budget meeting and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :35 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Steve Korff. o The City Manager stated the meeting was primarily for the purpose of reviewing the proposed 1979 Budget but prior to beginning the review of the Budget, the City Manager asked the Council to review the master labor agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees _Union, Local #320. The City Manager recommended approval of the contract and explained there was very little change from the last contract. He stated the majority of the contract was retroactive to January 1 with the exception • of certain specific items such as longevity pay, which was retroactive to July 1 . He explained one of the changes resulting from the arbitrator's award was a two track system in which the officer had a choice between longevity pay or college incentive pay. Because of the nature of the two tracks, virtually every officer is anticipated to choose the longevity track. A further change in this area is that courses applicable to college incentive must now be job related. Grievances are expected over the interpretation of "job related" but all grievances will be handled jointly by the MAMA group, not by individual communities. The City Manager also explained the pay increments for both tracks -- longevity and college incentive--are listed as percentages in the new contract. If percentages rather than dollar amounts are left in future contracts, it will mean a substantial escalation in the dollar amounts. The City Manager reviewed an additional change in the contract relating to pay. In the last contract the Brooklyn Center Police Department paid unionized employees by the hour, rather than a salary per month. The present contract stipulates all employees must be paid a salary by the month. The Chief of Police has indicated, as a result of this stipulation, the Brooklyn Center Police Department would be establishing a 5 2 schedule for all unionized employees. The City Manager explained officers were formerly paid a flat uniform allowance and under the new contract, officers will be provided with the necessary uniform. The City Manager summarized the contract indicating the arbitrator's wording within the contract left much to interpretation. Further discussion ensued concerning whether or not the contract retained the 9- 13• -78 -1- s necessary management prerogative to effectively manage the Police Department, There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the master labor agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Union, Local #320, .Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 1979 BUDGET HEARING Mayor Nyquist reconvened the Budget hearing. The City Manager explained the City of Brooklyn Center had received a confirmation as to the exact amount of State aids available to Brooklyn Center for the year 1979. The Director of Finance had reviewed with the Council on September 11, 1978 a .conservative estimate of State aids. The proposed Budget document distributed to Council members includes the estimated figures for State aid which are below the actual figures. The Director of Finance distributed a correction, The Director of Finance also explained that an updated assessed valuation figure was now available to be used in figuring the 1979 Budget, The Director of Finance stated the mill levy proposed for 1979 is 17.565 mills which is an increase of approximately 7.67% from 1978. The Director of Finance further explained the computation of the City property tax, based on the proposed tax levy, on a $35,000 Brooklyn Center home. The City Manager proceeded to review the City Manager's Budget message for • the proposed 1979 Budget. He explained the emphasis this year in preparing the Budget had been placed on sustaining the present programs with little or no thought of expansion. He expressed his thanks for the cooperation from the City staff, and particularly the Director of Finance, in putting together the 1979 Budget. In response to questions from Council members, the City Manager explained the increases in paperwork in the Police Department and the Assessor's office which have necessitated an increase in the number of part -time clerical hours proposed for those departments, In commenting on the proposed appropriation of $8,000 for a State mandated program for an energy audit conducted for all major public buildings as mentioned in the City Manager's Budget message, Councilmember Kuefler stated certain State mandated programs were financially burdensome to municipalities and should be subsidized by the State. He suggested cost impact of the programs to municipal governments should be ascertained before legislation mandates those programs for municipal government. He suggested the voting pattern of area legislators on this issue should be checked and legislators should be made aware of the concerns of local government. The Director of Finance briefly reviewed a 1979 resume of revenues and estimated revenues. The Director of Finance explained certain of the revenues as listed were estimates and were usually estimated conservatively because this was in the best interests of the City. . He explained historical figures for revenue estimates could sometimes be misleading because occasionally a given year may be 9-13-78 -2- exceptionally high and future years would be considerably lower. 41 There were questions from Councilmembers concerning particular listed items of revenue which were listed in one year only. An example of this type of item is the antirecession fund in which the City of Brooklyn Center received approximately $4,000 in revenue in the year 1977 and since that time has not received any revenue for antirecession The Director of Public Works, based on his participation in the 1978 Budget process, explained the money was acquired at that time because Brooklyn Center was made eligible based on unemployment rates. Since that time, Brooklyn Center has been ineligible because of lower unemployment rates. Similarly, in 1977, Brooklyn Center received a one time allocation of Federal money through a Federal program to upgrade signery to meet manual specifications. No money has since been received in that category. The increase in the estimated revenues for the adult recreation program was explained as due to the increase in adult participation in the program. The Director of Finance explained the community center does not technically support itself if all aspects of the community center are considered. Certain programs I within the community center are self - supporting but other programs are not able f to support themselves o The City Manager explained there was no revenue listed under the category "sale of property" because money from the sale of such property, as the former City Hall property, would be placed in the capital improvement fund, not the general fund, so as not to artificially inflate the general fund, which would potentially cause problems in future years. Councilmember Lhotka arrived at 8 :25 p.m. The City Manager briefly reviewed the resume of appropriations and expenditures for all budgeted City funds before proceeding to the review of departmental appro- priations. The Council Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained the $10,000 proposed for the City Council appropriation was for professional and consultant fees intended to provide for any necessary special planning studies, consulting services to advisory boards and commissions as may be needed, personnel consulting services and other outside professional assistance as may be required. The remainder of the Council Budget is primarily for membership dues and subscriptions, The Charter Commission Budget was reviewed, The City Manager commented the statutory amount of $1,500 is being recommended for the 1979 Budget. The City Manager's Office Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained, as part of the Budget for the City Manager's Office, he was proposing the City Manager be granted a vehicle allowance rather than being provided a City vehicle. He explained the Police Department was requesting one additional auto as neces- sitated in part by the reorganization. The City Manager indicated the Council had been made aware of the likelihood of this request at the time the reorganization 9-13-78 -3- was presented to the Council. The City Manager stated presently approximately 80% of the other metropolitan City - Managers use their own auto and are given a vehicle allowance. The vehicle allowance proposed in the 1979 Budget is $1, 800 and the additional $150 proposed is for use of personal auto by other administrative staff, when necessary. As a point of clarification, the vehicle allowance would cover all travel by the City Manager and the City Manager would be reimbursed in an amount in addition to the vehicle allowance only for mileage traveled outside of the metropolitan area, The Director of Finance stated the increase in hospital insurance was due to a change in the way health insurance was computed. Formerly the amount budgeted was based on actual employees and consideration of whether or not they required single or family coverage. Due to the uncertainty of personnel changes, it was decided to budget in the 1979 Budget an amount which would cover hospital insurance at a family rate for all employees. The Elections and Voters' Registration Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained the municipality was locally responsible for carrying out the election within the municipality with only limited help from the County in the printing of ballots. The cost of the voting machines and the cost of administration of the voting is borne by the City. Approximately one -third of one administrative office clerk's position is allocated to responsibility for Elections and Voters' Registration, As in prior years one -third of one administrative office clerk's salary and fringe benefits have been allocated to the Election and Voters' Registration function. The Assessing Budget was reviewed, The City Manager explained the major change in the Assessing Budget was due to an attempt to develop a property data system through LOGIS. The Director of Finance reviewed the progress of the development of the property data system through LOGIS in response to questions from the Council regarding this same item in the 1978 Budget. The Assessing Budget also comprehends additional part -time clerical assistance to be used temporarily until the LOGIS system is operative. The Finance Budget was reviewed. The Director of Finance explained the 1979 department proposal recommends the position of Chief Accountant be added because it is anticipated the Public Utilities Division Superintendent will retire in 1979 If the Chief Accountant position is added, the utility billing function operation would come under the supervision of the Finance Department and the Chief Accountant would be responsible for the utility billing function, 50% of the position's salary would be allocated to the Public Utilities Division. It is anticipated the Chief Accountant would also work on an internal audit as well as with working with the independent auditors, hopefully reducing the cost of the independent audit to the City. The Director of Finance also explained it is anticipated the department will lose the accounting assistant position presently authorized and made possible through the Federal CETA program, If the CETA program is terminated at the end of the 1978 year, the accounting assistant position would also be terminated. 9 -13 -78 -4- The Independent Audit Budget was reviewed, The Director of Finance stated the increase in the cost of the Independent Audit was due to an increase in the hourly rate charged for the audit. As a point of clarification, the Director of Finance explained the only audit the State performs is the Fire Relief audit. The Legal Counsel Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained he had received a memorandum from Mr, Richard Schieffer, City Attorney, suggesting a 13 -1/2% increase for legal counsel due to certain specified reasons. Mr. Schieffer also proposed, in the memorandum, a different hourly rate for work done by the City Attorney and the firm, based on the experience of the lawyer who performs the task. Included also, is a proposed lesser billing rate for specific work assigned to the law clerks within the firm. Councilmembers asked the City Manager to prepare a breakdown of the costs for services performed by the City Attorney. Councilmembers also were interested in determining what the average cost per case prosecuted is. The City Manager indicated he would put together the research as requested by the Council and also look at the standard fees being charged to other cities for legal counsel. The Government Buildings Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained the capital outlay portion of the Government Buildings Budget includes minor remodeling of the East Fire Station, the conversion of the City Hall vestibule to a conference room, and the conversion of the existing City Hall conference room to an office for the Director of Planning and Inspection. The remodeling of the East Fire Station is necessitated in part by the energy inefficiency of the Fire Station. The Office of Planning and Inspection is extremely cramped and in need of additional conference roam space. This need can be accommodated by converting the existing City Hall conference room to a conference room for Planning and Inspection. There is adequate additional space in the City Hall vestibule to convert that area to a conference room for City Hall. The City Manager explained the 1979 Budget proposal comprehends no additions to the permanent work force within Government Buildings. In addition, it is anticipated four full -time federally financed CETA custodial positions will be eliminated prior to January l 1979. The City Manager explained a street materials storage building was also being requested to be funded from the capital project fund at a cost of $58,000. The Director of Public Works explained the structure would house the salt and sand mixture which is used by the City to control ice on the roads in the winter. Presently the mixture is stored outside the facility at 69th and Dupont. Last year there was a water main break adjacent to the salt and sand storage piling, and on digging down to repair the break, it was found the salt mixture from the storage pile had eaten away the water main. There is also concern about the leeching of salt from this pile into the storm sewer system. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has sent out a questionnaire inventorying the type of salt storage facilities municipalities, counties, and other road maintenance Jurisdictions are using. It is anticipated, in the near future, jurisdictions will be required to contain and eliminate this leeching Presently approximately_ 10% 9-18-78 -5- of the total salt is being leeched from the mixture, which is equivalent to approxi- mately $1 , 500 to $2, 000 per year. The salt storage building ould be the first phase of this capital improvement. g p p p Additionally, in future years, a poured concrete storage area would be added. A mezzanine on the north wall of the present garage has also been suggested for installation in future years. The Director of Finance explained the capital pro1ects fund had been started in 1968 to provide for major capital outlays and /or to reduce capital outlay debt. The sources of the fund include ad valorem taxes, surpluses of other City funds issuances of bonds, interest earnings of fund, and other sources. It is recommended this particular improvement be financed out of the capital improvement funds in the amount of $58, 000. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the appropriation of $58,000 from the capital improvement fund for the street materials storage building Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Special Budget meeting was recessed at 10 :00 p.m. and was reconvened at 10:15 p.m. The Detached Worker Program Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained that with the anticipated demise of the Federal CETA program prior to January 1, 1979, the City will no longer be able to support the Detached Worker Program and no appropriation has been made for 1979. If funding from CETA is extended, it is recommended the program be extended. Additionally, the City Manager commented the Detached Worker Program would have priority if only a specified number of CETA positions could be retained by the City. At this point, it is not the intention of the City Manager to cut regularly funded City positions to save Detached Worker positions. The Council expressed concern over the elimination of the program. In response the City Manager indicated if it was the Council's wish, the Detached Worker could be funded from the Contingency Fund if CETA funds were not available in 1979. The City Manager asked the Council to give consideration to the Detached Worker Program in light of the fact that to insure a consistent future for the Detached Worker Program, money from the municipal budget would have to be allocated. If the City Council wishes to allocate money from the municipal budget to continue this CETA program, the Council should give consideration to other areas which might be reduced or terminated. The City Manager again stated it was not his recommendation to cut other City positions to save the Detached Worker Program. Discussion ensued as to the use of the Detached Worker Program by the Police Department. It was decided to defer farther discussion on the Detached Worker Program until other departmental budgets have been considered. The Police Department Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained because of severe budget restraints and because of the high cost of replacing police officers, no additions to the 9 -13 -78 -6- departmental personnel component are recommended for 1979. It is the recom- mendation of the City Manager the additional patrol officer position created in the 197 Budget, which has not yet been filled, be rescinded. The City Manager indicat d it was his intent to assess the reorganization and to assess service delive as well as alternatives for delivery of the same service. The Police Department will lose one -half of a clerk III osition on h rm'n p the to i anon of the ETA program. It is recommended the part -time clerical appropriation be increased to compensate for the loss of the position. In response to questions regarding the rotation of cars into squad cars, the City Manager explained, it had been common practice to use the new cars for admini- stration to be rotated into squad cars and finally to be rotated to staff pool cars. The Superintendent of Streets had evaluated this particular use of cars and found it to be most effective. Use of the new cars by administrative personnel enables the cars to be broken in gradually and allows small problems to be worked out, usually under warranty, before the car is rotated into be a squad car. Dolores Hastings, 5813 Aldrich Avenue North, inquired about the area of the police budget which comprehends a silent alarm. She asked if the City or the Police Department was aware of alarms which can be carried by women for their protection at a nominal cost. The program is available through Hennepin County. The City Manager indicated the City was not presently familiar with the alarms but would check into the matter. The Fire Protection Budget was reviewed. The City Manager stated the 1979 proposal comprehends no change in manpower complement nor does it comprehend a change in the per watch compensation. The City Manager recommended, as part of the capital outlay portion of the Budget', the acquisition of one aerial pumper ladder truck, The City Manager explained the Fire Department possessed much equipment of approximately the same vintage which would require replacement at approximately the same time, The City Manager indicated it would be nearly impossible to replace all of the Fire Department equip•- ment at one time and the aerial pumper ladder truck was recommended at this time in order to prevent the need for acquisition all at one time. Additionally, the Fire Department is deficient in mainline equipment. The deficiency is primarily in ground ladders. The City Manager also explained the City of Brooklyn Center had made use of the mutual aid pact between the Fire Department and other municipal Fire Departments had helped Brooklyn Center in fighting particular fires because the other departments had more advanced equipment. The City Manager indicated the City Council must consider the need for reciprocity in mutual aid. The Council requested additional information from the City Manager concerning the various types of uses of the aerial equipment as well as additional. information on the mutual aid between Fire Departments. The Director of Finance briefly reviewed a report on Federal Revenue Sharing Funds yet to be allocated Councilmember Lhotka was excused at 11:15 p.m. 9 -13 -78 -7- l The Planning and Inspection Budget was reviewed. Councilmember Lhotka returned at 11 :17 pm. The City Manager stated the budget for Planning and Inspection contains a recommendation for departmental expansion into the adjoining administrative office conference room. The appropriation for the remodeling is contained in the Govern- ment Buildings Budget. No additional staff has been recommended in the 1979 proposal. The Planning and Inspection Department will lose one -half of a clerk II position with the anticipated termination of the Federally financed CETA program, The Emergency Preparedness Budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained the 1979 Emergency Preparedness Budget reflects no major change in activity from the previous year. A significant portion of the Emergency Preparedness Budget reflects local matching share for Federal grant programs, the revenues from which are reflected in the revenue section of the Budget. The capital outlay portion of the Budget reflects the anticipated acquisition of certain Fire Department and Police Department equipment under the matching snare Federal grant concept. If the matching fund grants are not available, the equipment would be purchased with Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Council- members expressed concern over the function of Emergency Preparedness because of criticism which had been directed at the Office of Emergency Preparedness by certain citizens. The concern expressed was that the Office of Emergency Pre - paredness was not prepared to handle possible emergencies within the City. The City Manager explained the Office of Emergency Preparedness worked j primarily through already existing departments within the City. - Because of the nature of the function of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, certain people might be misled into thinking there no activity within the Office of Emergency Preparedness. The City Manager indicated this was not actually the case, I There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to recess the Special Budget meeting to be reconvened at the Council meeting of September 25, 1978. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :33 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 9 -13 -78 -8- MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Laurie Thompson, Planning and Inspection Aide SUBJECT: Performance Agreement Recommended for Release or Reduction DATE: September 20, 1978 Site inspections have been made and on the basis of completed site improvements the following releases or reductions are recommended: 1. Bermel- Smaby, 6500 Brooklyn Boulevard (Planning Commission Application No. 71031) Release $2500.00 bond submitted by Bermel- Smaby. 2. Schell Clinic, 412 66th Avenue North (Planning Commission Application No. 77008) Release $1,000.00 cash escrow submitted by Dr. Robert Schell 3. Hiawatha Rubber, 1700 67th Avenue North (Planning Commission Application No. 75027) Reduce $5,000.00 bond submitted by Hiawatha Rubber to $1,000.00. Approv Dire for of P anning an Inspection i I i 'a a REVIEW OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS S eptember 25 1978 Hearing Project Im p rovement Location Assessment Unit Hearing No. of ..� Method Assess Estimate Remarks 1977 -14 Street Surfacing 52nd Ave, No. from Drew Ave. to the east approx. 135 feet. Unit $ 981.61 $1,150,00 7 1977 -15 Water Main Unity Ave. from 460' north of Footage & $13.42/ c. c/1 69th Ave. n'ly approx. Area $4.14/1001 Distributed @ 645,66 per unit at request Sq. Ft. + c/s Same 20 of developer 1977 -16 Sanitary Sewer Unity Ave. from 420' north of Un it $439,16 per Based on equal- c/1 69th Ave. to 73rd Ave, Lnit request of 366.55 $ 20 izaticn method, developer. 1977 -17 Street Surfacing Unity Ave. from 443' north of (Storm sewer c/1 69th n'ly approx. 460'. $1�9 -60 per Only storm sewer portion), Only unit rather $972.51 20 portion to be assess- 0 than by acre ed. Street covered 1977 -21 Sanitary Sewer Lakeside from c/1 of Twin at dev request by developer bond. Lake Ave. easterly approx. Design change 170 feet. Unit $ minimized restor- 3,106.79 $5,950.00 20 ation. 1978 -17 Water Main Irving from approx. 165' south of 70th to 69th Ave.; proposed 2 units prey. Irving Lane from approx. 723' $1,418.00 /unit deferred assessed $ 380.00 t. this project C 380. east of Logan to Irving; and Unit & $380.00 + c/s Same services on the N side of 69th Footage 20 + c/s from Irving w'ly approx. 245 .978 -18 Sanitary Lateral Irving ',ane from an existing manhole 718' E of Logan e'ly $763.90 Lateral 4 units previously 118'; Irving Lane from Irving $463.39 Service deferred @a $404.10 $ w'ly approx. 175' & service to .Unit assessed this proj. unit $1,433 L 1, B 1, Irving Estates. / 20 along with service costs. 1 ;t Assessment Unit Hearing No. -of. Project Improvement Location Method Assessment Estimate 'rears Remarks 1978 -19 Storm Sewer Irving from 70th to Irving Lane Unit $ 730.12 $1,000.00 20 1978 -25 Sanitary Sewer Proposed James Circle from Freeway Blvd. s'ly approx. $1,137.148/Ae. 545'. Area + c/s $1,222.00 15 1978 -26 Storm Sewer S. Side of Freeway Blvd. from proposed James circle e'l> approx. 200' to an existing inlet on Freeway Blvd. Area $ 578.123/Ac. $ 639.00 15 San. Sewer Hookups The Ponds Sq. Ft. $ 0.558/100 sq. ft. 3 (Total $9,263.88) 7242 Knox.Ave.,.No. $552.24 (Same rate as when project - installed) 20 yrs Water Hookups 1601 67th Ave. No.- $5,297.11 15 $14.47/ft & $4.46/• - 100 sq. ft, ;7000 Brooklyn Blvd. $ 280.00 15 3400 48th Ave. No. $ 570.26 15 6637 Hu,-nboldt $1,422.18 20 4210 -14 Lakeside $1,085.43 20 . 3918 57th Ave. No. $ 490.00 20 7242 Knox Ave. No. $ 490.00 . 20 1 r , Member introduced - the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SHADE TREES WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for -the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction work by informal quotations when - the amount of such contract is less - than - ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the purchase of shade - trees and has determined that the quotation of Instant Shade, Inc. in the amount of $4,000 for shade - trees based on - the installed price of $35 per diameter inch plus $15 per diameter inch if - tree furnished by Instant Shade (based on a 5" tree furnished and installed the price would be $250) , is - the best quotation submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by - the City Council of - the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be authorized to contract for - the purchase of shade •trees in - the amount of $4,000 from Instant Shade, Inc. Date Mayor AT EST• 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 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 $130,000.00. These notes shall be dated September 25, 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 Resolution 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. Da to Ma yor 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 PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -31, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -32, STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -33, CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -34, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -35, STREET GRADING, BASE • SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -36, AND CURB • GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -37 WHEREAS, it is proposed that there be constructed improvements consisting of the following: Estimated Pro'e No. Improvement Cost 1978 -31 Trunk water main in proposed Unity Avenue North (Outlot A, The Ponds) from 940 feet north of the centerline of 69th Avenue North northerly approximately 1,300 feet. $ 44,200.00 1978 -32 Storm sewer in proposed Unity Avenue North from a point approximately 1,270 feet north of 69th Avenue North running northwesterly approximately 130 feet in Unity Avenue Circle; thence northerly on an easement a distance of approximately 150 feet. $ 12,900.00 1978 -33 Street grading, base & surfacing on proposed Unity Avenue North (Outlot A, The Ponds) from 900 feet north of the centerline of 69th Avenue North northerly approximately 600 feet. $17,600.00 1978 -34 Curb & gutter on proposed Unity Avenue North (Outlot A, The Ponds) from 900 feet north of the centerline of 69th Avenue North northerly approxmately 600 feet. $ 13,000.00 1978 -35 Storm sewer along proposed Unity Avenue North from the westerly extension of the south dine of Outlot F, The Ponds, northerly approx- imately 400 feet. $ 26,500.00 1978 -36 Street grading, base & surfacing along proposed Unity Avenue North from the westerly extension of the south line of Outlot F, The Ponds, northerly approximately 780 feet to 73rd Avenue North. $ 24,100.00 I Resolution No. Estimated Project No. Improvement Cost 1978 -37 Curb & utter along proposed Unit Avenue g g P P Y North from the westerly extension of the south line of Outlot F, The Ponds, northerly approximately 780 feet to 73rd Avenue North. $ 15,500.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made a preliminary report advising that said proposed improvements are feasible and that they can be constructed at estimated costs as indicated above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes. 2. A public hearing on the proposed improvements shall be held at the City Hall in the City on Monday, October 16, 1978, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., central daylight time, and the Clerk shall publish notice of the time and place of hearing by two weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the City. 3. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is as follows: ALL LOTS AND PARCELS ABUTTING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STREETS AND /OR TO BE BENEFITED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS. 4. These proposed improvements shall be designated as Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -31, Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -32 and 1978 -35, Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -33 and 1978 -36, and Curb & Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -34 and 1978 -37. 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. 4 0 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -33 AND 1978 -36; AND CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -34 AND 1978 -37, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (STREET PAVING AND CURB & GUTTER CONTRACT 197 -P) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The plans and specifications for the following improvements prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the Clerk: Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -33 & 1978 -36 Curb "& Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -34 & 1978 -37 2. The Clerk shall advertise for bids for such improvements by publication at least once in the official newspaper and in the ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids. Said notice shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed and accompanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, cashier's check or certified -check payable t o o the h City Clerk i r nt the amount 1 a of n less of s than five per r cent (5/ p ) of the bids. 3. Bid date is set for Monday, October 16, 1978, at 11:00 o'clock A.M., central daylight time. 4. The City Manager and City Engineer shall be authorized to open and tabulate the bids. L 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 vied in favor thereof: a 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: r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -4 AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -5 WHEREAS, it is proposed that there be constructed improvements consisting of the following: Estimated Project No Improvement Cost 1978 -4 Water main beginning 5 feet north of the City limits of Brooklyn Center at an existing water main in Brooklyn Park approximately 210 feet west of the Brooklyn Boulevard (T.H. 152) right -of -way; thence east along the City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard; thence southeasterly approximately 165 feet along the southeast edge of said right -of -way; thence across Brooklyn Boulevard to a point approximately 55 feet south of the City limits on the northeast right -of -way line of Brooklyn Boulevard. $ 17 200.00 1978 -5 Sanitary sewer beginning 15 feet north of the City imits of Brooklyn Center at an existing Y Y 9' sanitary sewer manhole approximately 204 feet west of Brooklyn Boulevard (T.H. 152) right - of -way; thence east along the City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard; thence southeasterly approx- imately 160 feet along the southeast edge of said -right-of-way; thence across Brooklyn Boulevard to a point approximately 44 feet south of the City limits on the northeast right -of -way line of Brooklyn Boulevard. $ 20,000.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made a preliminary report advising that said proposed improvements are feasible and that they can be constructed at estimated costs as indicated above. NOW, THEREFORg, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes. Resolution No. 2. A public hearing on the proposed improvements shall be held at the City Hall in the City on Monday, October 16, 1978, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., central daylight time, and the Clerk shall publish notice of the time and place of hearing by two weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the City. 3. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is as follows: ALL LOTS AND PARCELS ABUTTING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STREETS AND /OR TO BE BENEFITED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS. 4. These proposed improvements shall be designated as Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -4 and Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5. 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 QUOTATION FOR LANDSCAPING (CONTRACT 1978 -Q)_ 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 -Q which consists of landscaping for Alley Surfacing Improvement Project Nos. 1977 -13D, 1977 -22D, 1978- 7B(D), Street Surfacing & Curb & Gutter `Im Improvement Project No. 1978 -2E and Grading, Base & Surfacing P J g, g e J Improvement Pro ' ct.Nos. `1978 - 24D and 27D and said quotations I P :. . were as follows: Firm Quotation Noble Nursery $9,434.30 Carver Nursery $9,965.16 WHEREAS, the City g Y 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 quotation of Noble Nursery` in the amount of $9,434.30 as to furnishing of all work, labor, and material in connection with the above- mentioned improvement projects, 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 by 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: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by nember , and upon vote being` taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution ®` and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING UTHORIZING THE RENTAL OF A DRAG LINE FOR CREEK RELOCATION PROJECT NO. 1978 -40 WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction work by informal quotations when the amount of such contract is less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the rental of a drag line for utilization on Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 and has determined that the quotation of Hayden Murphy Equipment Company in the amount of $3,818 per month is the best quotation submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager is authorized to contract for the rental of a drag line for utilization on Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 at the rate of $3,818 per month from Hayden Murphy Equipment Company. • Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78 -198 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR UTILITY CONTRACT NO. 1978 -0 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted Resolution No. 78 -198 on September 11, 1978, approving plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids for Utility Contract No. 1978 -0; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be the best interests of the City to add the Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 relating to lowering of a 16" watermain to said Contract No. 1978 -0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend Resolution No. 78 -198 to include Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 in the approval of plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids of Utility Contract No. 1978 -0. 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. 4 l� e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALT RAGE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT HI STO I PROJECT NO. 1978 -43 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to initiate Salt Storage Building Improvement Project No. 1978 - 43; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for said Salt Storage Building Improvement Project No. 1978 -43, described as follows: Project N o. Improvement 1978 -43 Construction of a salt storage building to be located on the municipal garage site at 2501 69th Avenue North. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i I ..»».w� I � �� { II I � 1 - J t � ,,i� �� .- ��; -; �� . �� . F �� 3 . ` }' 4 Member introduced the following_ resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SALT STORAGE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -43 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1978 -R) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The plans and specifications for the following improvement prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the Clerk: Salt Storage Building Improvement Project No. 1978 -43 2. The Clerk shall advertise for bids for such improvement by publication at least once in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin, the date of first publication not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of receipt of bids. Said notice shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed and accompanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, cashier's check, or certified check payable to the City Clerk in the amount of not less than five per cent (5.) of the bids. 3. Bid date is set for Wednesday, October 25, 1978, at 11:00 a.m., central daylight time. 4. The City Manager and City Engineer shall be authorized to open and tabulate the bids. Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk - The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i Member introduced the following resolution ' and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT 1977 -15 AND 1978 -17; AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT 1977 -16, 1977 -21, 1978 -18 AND 1978 -25; AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT 1978 -19 AND 1978 -26; AND STREET SURFACING IMPROVEMENT 1977 -14 AND 1977 -17; AND PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER HOOKUPS AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUPS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Clerk has, with the assistance of the Engineer heretofore selected by this Council for such purpose, calculated the proper amounts to be _specially assessed for the improvements known as the improvements listed above of said City against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land in accordance with the provisions of law, and has prepared and filed with the City Clerk tabulated statements in duplicate showing the proper description of each and every lot, piece or parcel of land to be specially assessed and the amount cal - culated against the same. • 2. Notice has been duly published as required by law that this Council would meet in regular session on Monday, September 25, 1978, to pass on the proposed assessments. 3. Said proposed assessments have at all times been open to inspection and copying by all persons interested, and opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments, or to any item thereof. 4. This Council finds that each of the lots, pieces or parcels of land enumerated in said proposed assessments was and is specially benefited by said improvement in the amount of said proposed assessment set opposite the description of each lot, piece or parcel of land, and that amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces or parcels of land therein described. 5. Such proposed assessments are adopted and confirmed, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assessments are affirmed, adopted, and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces or parcels of land respectively. RESOLUTION NO. 6. Said assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be certified • to by the City Clerk and filed in his office, and shall thereon be and constitute the special assessments for the payment of the above listed improvements. 7. The amounts assessed against each lot, piece or parcel of land shall bear interest from the date hereof until the amounts have been paid at the rate of eight (8/) per annum. 8. Such assessments shall be payable in equal installments beginning in the year 1978 payable on the 16th day of November in each succeeding year and continuing until all of said installments shall have been paid, each installment to be collected with the taxes collectible during said year by the Director of Finance of Hennepin County. A. Water Main Improvement No. 1977 -15 and 1978 -17 in twenty (20) equal installments. B. Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. 1978 -25 in fifteen (15) equal installments C. Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. 1977 -16, 1977 -21 and • 1978 -18 in twenty (20) equal installments. D. Storm Sewer Improvement No. 1978 -19 in fifteen (15) equal installments. E. Storm Sewer Improvement No. 1978 -26 in twenty (20) equal installments. F. Street Surfacing Improvement No. 1977 -14 and 1977 -17 in seven (7) equal installments. G. Public Utilities Water Hookups in fifteen (15) equal installments. H. Public Utilities Water Hookups in twenty (20) equal installments. I. Sanitary Sewer Hookups in three (3) equal installments. J. Sanitary Sewer Hookups in twenty (20) equal installments. • Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Resolution No. w 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 CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Tree Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused the removal of diseased shade trees on certain property within the City under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.203; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for Diseased Shade Tree Improvement Project No. 1978 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesotan 1. The City Clerk has, with the assistance of the Engineer heretofore selected by this Council for such purpose, calculated the 'proper amounts to be specially assessed for the improvements known as the improvements listed above of said City against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land in accordance with the provisions of law, and has prepared and filed with the City Clerk tabulated statements in duplicate showing the proper description of each and every lot, piece or parcel of land.to be specially assessed and the amount calculated against the same. 2. Notice has been duly published as required by law that this Council would meet in regular session on Monday, September 25, 1978, to pass on the proposed assessments. 3. Said proposed assessments have at all times been open to inspection and copying by all persons interested, and opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments, or to any item thereof. 4. This Council finds that each of the lots, pieces or parcels of land enumerated in said proposed assessments was and is specially benefited b said improvement in the amount of said y p proposed assessment set opposite the description of each lot, piece or parcel of land, and that amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described. 5. Such proposed assessments are adopted and confirmed, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assessments are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces or parcels of land respectively. Resolution No. 6. Said assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be certified 0 to by the City Clerk and filed in his office, and shall thereon be and constitute the special assessments for the payment of the above listed improvements. 7. The amounts assessed against each lot, piece or parcel of land shall bear interest from the date hereof until the amounts have been paid at the rate of eight (8 %) per annum, 8. Such assessments shall be payable in equal installments beginning in the year 1978 payable on the 16th day of November in each succeeding year and continuing until all of said installments shall have been paid, each installment to be collected with the taxes collectible during said year by the Director of Finance of Hennepin County. A Diseased Shade Tree Removal Improvement Project No. 1978 -1 in three (3) equal installments for assessments totalling less than $300.00. I„ i B. Diseased Shade Tree Removal Improvement Project No. 1978 -1 in five (5) equal installments for assessments totalling more than $300.00. 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. L II Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the records of the Public Utilities Billing Department lists certain accounts as delinquent for the year; and WHEREAS, the consumers have been notified of the delinquency according to legal requirements; and WHEREAS, State Statutes 444.075 authorized certification of the delinquent accounts to the County tax rolls for collection: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to order the Director of Finance of Hennepin County to place the following delinquent accounts consisting of able delinquent principal and interest thereon at 8% on the 1978 a q P P / payable 1979 tax rolls: Plat Parcel Addition Lot Block Amount 89010 3970 Section 10 68.00 89225 2970 Bellvue Acres 15 2 55.90 89370 1400 Fair Meadows 7 1 55.90 89442 7000 Hipp's 5th 2 2 55.90 89461 2000 Hohenstein's 2nd 2 34.84 89540 5030 Linden Shores on Twin Lake 16/17 3 55.90 _ 89665 0700 Pearson's Northport 1st 7 1 55.90 89675 0200 N. & E. Perkins 4/5 1 55.90 89675 5460 N. & E. Perkins 16/17 4 55.90 89679 3000 Perron 3 34.84 89961 2000 Rockwell's 2nd 2 1 55.90 90040 6000 Sunset Manor 2 3 70.21 Resolution No. • Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion ofr 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 CERTIFYING DELINQUENT NOXIOUS WEED CUTTING ACCOUNTS FOR 1978 CUTTING TO THE HENNE PIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Weed Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused noxious weeds to be cut down on certain properties within the City under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.271; and WHEREAS, the owners of record of the properties'involved were notified in writing by certified mail of the work done and the costs and expenses involved at least thirty days prior to September 22, 1978, in accordance with individual notice provisions of Subdivision 4 of Section 18.271; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 1978, there remained unpaid certain of these weed cutting accounts; and WHEREAS, Section 18.271, Subdivision 4, authorizes the certif- ication of delinquent weed cutting accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to order the Director of Finance of Hennepin County to place the following delinquent weed cutting accounts, consisting of weed cutting costs and expenses, and penalty thereon at 8/ on the 1978 payable in 1979 tax rolls: Plat Parcel Addition Lot Block Amount 89035 4100 Section 35 $ 42.00 89035 6500 Section 35 42.00 89104 3823 Auditor's Subdivision No. 309 33 26.00 89105 3800 Auditor's Subdivision No. 310 31 26.00 89225 2970 Bellvue Acres 15 2 26.00 89385 7010 Garcelon's Addn. to Minneapolis 41 22,00 89425 5500 Guilford's Outlots 10 103.00 89425 6000 Guilford's Outlots 11 103.00 Resolution No. Plat Parcel Addition Lot Block Amount 89435 9020 R. L. Hansen's lst 4 2 $ 26.00 89438 2010 Hi Crest Square 2 1 138.00 90017 9000 Shopper's 2 1 130.00 90020 2400 Soderholm 3 2 26.00 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1978 CITY HALL CAL 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, Jacobson, Pierce and Hawes. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) August 24, 1978 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to approve the minutes of the August 24, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Jacobson and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce, who he was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 78053 (Eloise Lowry) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was Appli- cation No. 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry. The Secretary explained the appli- cation was for a special use permit for a home occupation at 6914 Lee Avenue North, consisting of porcelain art instructions. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and noted the applicant had submitted a letter outlining the proposed home occupation, which includes instruct- ing individuals in the basic procedures for brush strokes and application of paint on porcelain, and instructing basic art concepts in connection with porcelain painting. He continued that the applicant proposed to hold three classes per week for two eight week sessions, one in the fall and one in the spring. He pointed out that the applicant had also indicated that she desires to have six or seven students per class. The Secretary reported that the Building Inspector had inspected the applicant's home and found that there should be no problem with code - related concerns with the application. He stated that the Building Inspector also indicated that off- street parking for four nonresident students could be provided in the applicant's driveway. The Secretary reviewed the standards for special use permits as well as the definition of special home occupations. He stated that a special use permit was required for the teaching of more than one, but no more than four non - resident students at any given time. He noted the applicant had been informed of this ordinance requirement. The Secretary also reviewed the recommended conditions -of approval and explained that a fifth condition was recommended, that the operation be limited to not more than four nonresident students, as provided in Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances. A discussion ensued relative to the intensity of the proposed use. Chairman Engdahl pointed out that since there could be a need for up to four parking spaces, the use was more intense than a home beauty parlor operation. The Secretary agreed and explained that because of the size of the driveway, the Building Official had determined that adequate off - street parking space could be provided. 9 -14 -78 -i- I e Commissioner Pierce questioned whether all the students would be present at one time. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and pointed out the applicant could encourage carpooling in order to minimize the traffic generation. He ex- planned that the applicant proposed two morning classes per week from 9:30 a.m. to 11 :30 a.m., and one evening class per week, but had not indicated the hours for the evening class. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, who further explained her proposed schedule. She stated that she proposed two eight week sessions, one in the fall and one in the spring, and would not hold classes during school vacation time. She continued that she proposed three classes per week, which would be on Monday morning,Tuesday morning, and Tuesday evening. In response to a question from Commissioner Jacobson, she stated the evening hours would be from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. In response to questions from Commissioner Pierce and Chairman Engdahl regarding traffic generation and parking problems, she stated that the family cars would be parked in the garage during the teaching sessions, and that she anticipated some carpooling among her students. She also pointed out that some students came to class on the bus. She explained that with seven students she would anticipate four cars. She stated her desire to have five to seven students per class. Chairman Engdahl pointed out only four students were permitted at any one time. The applicant responded that in her special use permit request, she was asking for permission to have seven students. The Secretary explained that the special use permit was required for more than one student, but did not permit any more than four students at any one time. Chairman Engdahl asked whether the students were adults and the applicant responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Jacobson inquired whether the applicant would like to add another class per week in view of the fact that she would be limited to four students. The applicant responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Pierce* explained that the Commission could establish maximum hours of operation and permit four classes per week during those maximum hours. A brief discussion followed regarding the hours of operation. The applicant stated she would add a daytime class rather than an evening class. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl stated that a public hearing had been scheduled. It was noted that none of the notified neighboring property owners spoke relating to the appli- cation. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In further discussion, Chairman Engdahl recommended establishing maximum hours of 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and a maximum of two classes per day Monday through Thursday. Commissioner Hawes asked the applicant whether there would be any delivery of materials to the house. The applicant responded that she supplied the materials, and that there would be no truck deliveries. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether there would be any.flammable materials stored on the premises. Mr. Lowry responded that turpentine was the only flammable material which would be stored on the premises, and that the Building Official had shown them how to handle and store the substance. The Secretary also pointed out the applicant had indicated there would be no smoking allowed during the classes. 9 -14 -78 -2- • RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78053 (Eloise Lowry) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No. 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation shall be grounds for revocation: 3. All parking related to the special use shall be off- street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. 4. The operation shall be limited to not more than four students as provided in Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances. 5. The hours of operation shall be 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, with no more than two classes per day and four classes per week. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Derr Harrington) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington. The Secretary explained that the applicant sought site and building plan approval for a wholesale distribution center on the property located at 4455 68th Avenue North. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and reviewed the application. He stated that the applicant proposed a wholesale distribution center consisting of three 20,000 sq. ft. office /warehouse buildings on the C2 (Commerce) zoned property located 'easterly of the NSP facility and westerly of the Iten Chevrolet site. He continued that the same applicant had received site and building approval under Application No. 77049 in October, 1977 for a commercial speculative building pro- posed for multiple tenancies on the same site. He stated the applicant had not been able to market the concept and contends the site is not well suited for standard commercial /retail uses due to its location, accessibility and the nature of neighboring land uses. He continued that the Commission had first reviewed conceptual drawings of the applicant's proposal on June 15 1978 and had determined that there were three possible approaches to the concept: one, to rezone the land to I -1 (Industrial Park); two, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for certain special uses in the C2 district, such as wholesale distribution; and three, to accept an application for the proposed development and make a finding that the proposed use was similar in nature to other uses permitted in the C2 district. The Secretary stated that the Commission had determined the third alternative was the most viable, and the application was formally reviewed by the Planning Commission at its August 10, 1978 meeting, and a number of concerns were raised, including parking for the site under the proposed use, as well as future parking needs if the property were to be converted to strictly retail uses. He continued that the applicant had proposed the possibility of providing a restrictive covenant, similar to that used in the S & H Green Stamp application involving property at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North, that would require additional parking to be provided inside one of the three buildings if parking became a problem at a future date. 9 -14 -78 -3- The Secretary also reviewed discussion relating to a 1973 proposal for "mini- warehouses" on this same site. He stated that that application had been denied on the basis that the proposal was more appropriately a use comprehended in the industrial district rathar than in the commercial district. He stated the Planning Commission had tabled the application on August 10, 1978 to enable the applicant to pursue the possibility of a restrictive covenant, and to prepare plans to show that adequate parking for C2 uses could be provided on the site. The Secretary reported that the City Attorney had reviewed a proposed restrictive covenant and had responded to the matter through a memorandum which was contained in the file. The Secretary discussed the City Attorney's recommendation, which would be to abandon the idea of a restrictive covenant for four reasons: 1. The City must go through a sham transaction of owning the property, and then deeding it back to the applicant in order to place itself in the chain of title for enforcement purposes. 2. Real estate law is imbued with the rule against Perpetuities, an ancient concept which looks unfavorably on owners of real estate who attempt to control future land uses. Therefore, restrictive covenants are not favored in litigation and courts can effectively remove them upon a change of circumstances. 3. The remedy for violation of restrictive covenants involves a district court civil action on the part of the City, the obtaining of an injunction, and the problems in enforcing a judgment of injunction, once it is obtained. By contrast, control of land by Zoning Ordinance is effected through criminal court procedures which are much faster and which carry more positive forms of inducement to abide by the regulation. 4. There are no enclosed parking ramps within the City of the suburban areas; certainly there are no one story enclosed parking ramps anywhere, leading to the conclusion that such a use of land is not economically feasible. If the property eventually does become more suitable for a retail use, the use of a large portion of it for garage facilities would make less sense than it does ' under present conditions. Attempting to enforce by restrictive covenant, a land use which is economic nonsense would find deaf ears in the market place and the court room, The Secretary reported that the City Attorney recommended use of an ordinance amendment which the Commission would find acceptable. The Secretary added that the City Attorney had indicated that the restrictive covenant could be used in conjunction with the Proof of Parking to show that parking could be provided on the site, should there be a future need. COMMIS SIONER BOOK ARRIVES Commissioner Book arrived at 8:35 p.m. The Secretary stated that another aspect of the application which necessitated careful review by the Planning Commission involved making a determination whether the applicant's proposed use is similar in nature to other permitted uses in the C2 district. He pointed out that the applicant felt his proposal was similar to the American Bakeries use on 69th Avenue North, which was not specifically listed in the Zoning Ordinance as a permitted C2 use. 9 -14 -78 -4- 'He stated that it was his understanding that a determination had been made that it was similar in nature to other C2 uses. He stated the determination the Commission must make was whether or not the applicant's proposal is similar to C2 permitted uses, or whether this type of proposal should be limited to such areas as the I -1 District where there already are a number of buildings which have office and warehouse uses. The Secretary reviewed the recommended conditions of approval and an extensive discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether a restrictive covenant should be required even if the City Attorney did not recommend it. The Secretary reviewed the City Attorney's memorandum, and a brief discussion ensued relative to the S & H Green Stamp covenant. Commissioner Pierce pointed out that the S & H'Green Stamp use had been a permitted use in the C2 district, and that the covenant had been on the use of the property. He suggested that perhaps under the present application, a restrictive covenant could be required on the use of the property rather than on parking. In response to questions from Commissioner Pierce and Chairman Engdahl, the City Engineer read the formula for determining the required number of parking spaces for C2 uses, and explained that the formula had been applied to the aggregate gross floor area of the three buildings. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce regarding the types of tenants, the Secretary stated that the applicant proposed tenants who would require office space and warehouse space, and that no retail activity was proposed. The Secretary pointed out that the American Bakeries use was partially a retail use. Commissioner Pierce commented that American Bakeries was the only occupant of that building. He stated he felt that the multiple tenants proposed under the current application might not be as easy to control. Chairman Engdahl inquired as to the parking required by the Schmitt Music use in the Industrial Park. The City Engineeer and the Secretary responded that the p rimarily Schmitt Music use was P Y a C2 use in the Industrial District, and th a t • adequate parking had been provided to support that use. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, who again explained his proposed whole- sale distribution use and his reasons for requesting it. He referred to a survey that had been conducted in which representatives of 60 types of uses had been approached regarding the feasibility of the property for those uses and had found that,none felt that the property was suitable for commercial /retail use. He continued that because of the surrounding land uses, and access to this site, where a customer would have to cross three lanes of Brooklyn Boulevard traffic. He concluded that the site was not suitable for commercial /retail uses. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether most deliveries would be made by truck. The applicant responded in the affirmative and pointed out that the adjacent NSP property and Post Office property also experienced a great deal of truck traffic. He also discussed the restrictive covenant he had proposed which would assure that one of the three buildings on the property would be used for garage purposes in the eventthat such a conversion to a permitted C2 retail use would take place. He added that he felt certain the property would not convert to a C2 retail use, and that he was willing to provide the City protection against that possibility with the restrictive covenant. COMMISSIONER THEIS ARRIVES Commissioner T eis arrived at 8:55 p.m. 9 -14 -78 -5- A discussion regarding the proposed use and the restrictive covenant ensued. Com- missioner Pierce commented that he would rather limit the use of the property than the parking. Commissioner Book inquired as to how the Northern States Power service facility met the C2 zoning district requirements. The Secretary responded that Northern States Power was a public utility, and the use was permitted because it was necessary for the public welfare. Commissioner Book pointed out that the use seemed to be an industrial rather than a commercial use. The Secretary stated that in addition to the storage of vehicles, there was also an office use on the site which was a permitted C2 use. The City Engineer commented that there were other uses required for the public welfare permitted throughout the City such as the Post Office, and the Northwestern Bell buildings. Chairman Engdahl stated he felt the applicant had made a major concession by providing the restrictive covenant, but he did not feel the Commission should act against the City Attorney's recommendation. The Secretary commented that the re- strictive covenant was a route which had been suggested by the applicant, and was not necessarily recommended by the staff. The applicant stated that the S & H Green Stamp situation had been explained to him by the former Director of Planning and Inspection as a possible means of addressing the parking problem. Chairman Engdahl recognized Building Official Will Dahn, who explained that the S & H Green Stamp operation had been a permitted use in the C2 district, but that the use could not meet the parking requirements on that site. He continued that that applicant did not feel the use would need as much parking as required by the ordinance, and that a restrictive covenant had been placed on the property which provided that the property could only be used as a stamp redemption center. The - Building Official explained that when that operation had ceased and a new use was proposed for the building, the restrictive covenant had to be lifted and the new occupant had to provide the parking required for a retail use, and that of that parking was provided inside of the building. Chairman Engdahl suggested that instead of restricting the parking, that the use could be restricted to a ratio of office use to warehouse use which would allow the applicant to meet the parking requirements. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to the City Attorney's recommendation for an ordinance amendment. The Secretary responded that the City Attorney recommended amending the ordinance to permit a wholesale distribution use in the C2 district. In response to questions from Commissioner Pierce and Chairman Engdahl, he stated that such an amendment would not solve the parking problem on the site. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the applicant proposed a phased development. The applicant responded that all the buildings would be built at one time. He further explained the nature of the building, and that the amount of office space in each building could be reduced to meet the parking requirements. The Secretary noted that reducing the amount of office space in each building would make the use less commercial in nature and less similar to the permitted uses in the C2 zone. Commissioner Pierce pointed out that the American Bakeries was actually a service and retail use along with the warehousing use. The applicant again reviewed his reasons for feeling that the property was not suitable for retail use, and stated that he had considered many commercial uses for the property, and had eventually proposed an alternate which varied from the ordinance. He stated that in view of this, he had proposed a protective restrict- ive covenant. He added that he had not been aware of the City Attorney's recom- mendation, and that he would like a copy of the memorandum. 9 -14 -78 -6- Chairman Engdahl pointed out that the City Attorney implied that such a restrictive covenant would not, in effect, protect the City should the property be converted to retail use. He stated the applicant would be provided with a copy of the memorandum. • Further discussion followed regarding the parking situation. Commissioner Book noted that if the use would change to a retail use, a new applicant would have to prove that the parking requirements for that use could be met on the site. He stated he did not understand why the Commission should be concerned with provision for future parking under this application. Commissioner Pierce pointed out that the Brookdale Office Tower on County Road 10 was a Cl use located in the C2 district. and asked how the parking for the building had been computed. The Building Official responded that the parking had been calculated on the Cl use. In further discussion Chairman Engdahl pointed out that in several cases a use had been denied because parking could not be met on the site. The City Engineer explained that the matter was one of degree as to how much total parking a building could support. He stated that the parking requirements for the industrial speculative buildings had been computed based on the total office space which could be allowed by the parking available. He commented that if the restrict- ive covenant were challenged, it might not hold up in court, but that it would show the City's intent to provide for parking needs should the buildings be converted to another use. Commissioner Book stated that he felt the Commission had three options: one, to approve the application without a restrictive covenant; two, to approve the application with the restrictive covenant; three, to deny the application. He further commented a e that at this. Dint the Commission had h luxury of requiring C m n t o P y the covenant which would show the City's intent and concerns regarding the parking. Chairman Engdahl stated he felt if the Commission recommended approval of the • application, it should be with the restrictive covenant. The Secretary stated that the City Attorney had indicated in further discussion that if the Planning Commission was inclined to approve the application, there L should be some kind of protection provided by the applicant. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners. Commissioner Theis stated he was still forming his own opinion, but that he did not like to recommend approval of the covenant against the City Attorney's recommendation. Commissioner Malecki stated she would recommend approval of the application with the restrictive covenant. She added that she felt there might be some merit in rezoning the property to I -1 - because of the existing land uses in the area. Commissioner Jacobson stated she felt the applicant's proposal was compatible with the existing land uses in that area. Commissioner Pierce stated he also felt the proposal was compatible with the existing land uses. Commissioner Book and Hawes agreed the proposal was compatible with the existing uses and that they would recommend approval of the application with the restrictive covenant. The Commission next reviewed the site and building plans. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether it would be possible to limit the amount of office space. The Secretary responded that it would not be feasible since the application was not for a special use permit. Commissioner Pierce commented that the Proof of Parking Plan showed a possibility of 205 spaces outside of the building, and stated that that amount • of parking space could support more office space than the applicant had indicated. The City Engineer stated - that _40Z of the building could be used for office space with that amount of parking provided. 9 -14 -78 -7- The Commission discussed the site plan. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl, the City Engineer stated that concrete curb was shown on the plan for the perimeter of the entire site and that the conceptual grading plans were in order although some minor revisions would be made. Commissioner Jacobson inquired as to the outside trash disposal and the required underground irrigation. The applicant stated that both would be provided in conformance with the ordinance re- quirements. The Secretary pointed out that provision for underground irrigation and screening of trash disposal containers would be conditions of approval guaran- teed by the site performance agreement. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Jerry Harrington) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Book to recommend approval of Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington finding that the proposed wholesale distribution use is similar in nature to existing uses permitted in the surrounding C2 District, and subject to the fol- lowing 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 landscape plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval comprehends parking to support the proposed wholesale distribution use; a restrictive covenant, approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the property to provide parking in one of three buildings should the wholesale distribution use cease and be converted to another C2 use re- quiring more parking. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equ 1 pment shall be appropriately screened from view. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Jacobson, Book and Hawes. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. Not voting: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. and resumed at 10:10 p.m. 9 -14 -78 -8- APPLICATION NO. 78057 (Blumentals Architecture, Inc.) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78057 submitted by Blumentals Architecture, Inc. The Secretary stated the application was for site and building plan approval of a 12,010 sq. ft. addition to an existing industrial and office building located at 1601 - 67th Avenue North, which was approved under Application No. 77053 on August 3, 1977. The Secretary showed a transparency of the site showing the building and the proposed addition. He stated the reason for the addition to the building was to provide additional space for a new tenant for automotive parts distribution. He added that no additional office space was comprehended for the addition. The Secretary continued that 67 additional parking spaces would be required with the new addition, based on the ordinance formulas. He stated the applicant had pro- posed that 62 parking spaces would be provided, and had submitted a Proof of "Parking Plan which showed that the required 67 spaces could be provided on the site. The Secretary explained that with the building addition, the applicant also pro- posed that the loading dock area be expanded to accommodate the addition. He stated that the applicant had further inquired about the possibility of moving the required 8 ft. high opaque wood fence which was to extend northerly from the existing building and provide screening for the parking area on the north portion of the site. The applicant felt that the fence would be better located close to the property line, would adequately screen the parking lot from the adjacent Rl institutional use, and would provide easier access to the 50 ft. green area between the property line and the existing building for maintenance and irrigation purposes. The Secretary stated that the City held a performance bond for various site improvements comprehended under Application No. 77053, and it was felt that the bond amount could adequately cover any additional improvements. The Secretary also reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. The Secretary explained that while the ordinance required a 100 ft. greenstrip where an I -1 property abuts an Rl property, a variance had been approved under Application No. 77052 to permit a 50 ft. greenstrip in view of the fact that the abutting R1 property was developed with a church, an institutional Rl use. He pointed out the fence location which was approved under the previous appli- cation, and the location preferred by the applicant on the transparency. A discussion ensued relative to the screening of the site. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether there had been any screening required on the Speculative Building _ No. VII property immediately north of the site under consideration, where it also abutted Rl property. The Building Official responded that since there was a berm in that area, as well as a dense growth of trees, no additional screening had been required. Commissioner Book stated that in his opinion, locating the fence would be unaesthetic. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Janis Blumentals, who represented the applicant. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl, Mr. Blumentals stated that the exterior of the addition would match that of the existing building. Chairman Engdahl commented that there were no changes in access -to the site proposed. The City Engineer responded that the parking plan was adequate. He also explained that in view of the institutional use of the abutting Rl property, the 8 -ft. high opaque fence required as screening by ordinance was not required for this property. He stated that the purpose of the fencing under discussion was to screen the open parking on the site from the R1 property. 9 -14 -78 -9- Further discussion regarding the fence followed. Chairman Engdahl stated he preferred the fence in its original location. Commissioner Theis agreed. The Building Official commented that he had reviewed the site with Mr. Blumentals and had noted that because of the landscaping on the site, the moving of the fence could incorporate some lilacs to serve as screening. He pointed out that re- location of the fence would not only be an improvement aesthetically, but would help in maintaining the landscaped area. He added that the applicant proposed to add an additional 15 to 20 ft. of fence in order to completely screen the parking from the R1 property. In further discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that relocating the fence to the property line would be acceptable. R ECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78057 (Blumentals Architecture, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78057 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 and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The current Performance Agreement being held for Application No. 77053 shall be retained to assure completion of any additional site improvements. 6. The fence approved for screening purposes under Application No. 77053 may be located near the property line. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78059 (Robert Fosdick) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78059 submitted by Robert Fosdick. The Secretary explained the applicant sought site and building plan approval'to convert the existing abandoned service station at 5001 Drew Avenue North to an eat -in /carry -out barbeque restaurant. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and stated that the site had been the subject of a previous proposal by Assurance Glass under Application No. 78018 to upgrade the existing service station to a new service. He continued that the proposal had not materialized, and that the owner of the ro ert had submitted p p Y a letter stating that that proposal was no longer active. The Secretary explained that the applicant's proposal comprehended remodeling the service station for the restaurant and utilizing the existing storage building on the westerly portion of the site to provide some employee parking. He con - tinued that 28 restaurant seats and a maximum number of four employees were proposed, which would require 16 parking spaces. The Secretary stated that the plans indicated fourteen parking stalls around the proposed restaurant and two employee stalls in the adjacent storage building. 9 -14 -78 -10 The Secretary continued that the plans comprehended rejuvenation of the site with sod, plantings and trees. He added that two curb cuts were proposed: an entrance on 50th Avenue North, and an exit onto Drew Avenue North. He stated the exterior finish of the restaurant would consist of diagonal board siding and painted concrete block, and the accessory building would have a similar treatment except for the side facing 50th Avenue North where it was proposed to leave the existing brick finish. The Secretary stated the ordinance required a 35 ft. greenstrip' and opaque screening where C2 (Commerce) abuts Rl (Single Family) property and that the homeowner direct- ly to the north of the site at 5013 Drew Avenue North presently has a 6 ft. high opaque fence which provides screening from the C2 site. He also stated that there is an existing 6 ft. stockade fence apparently erected to screen the service station from the residential property. He continued that the applicant proposed to relocate the stockade fence to provide screening for the trash receptacle and some of the parking spaces. The Secretary stated that when Application No. 78018 was considered, the property owner to the north had agreed that his existing fence could serve as screening. He continued that the property owner .had been contacted recently and had agreed that the required 8 ft. fence could be deferred. The Secretary continued that the homeowner was aware that screening was the responsibility of the C2 property, and he felt his own fence probably had a maximum life expectancy of five years. The Secretary stated that the owner of the C2 property was aware of the require- ments, and that it is recommended, if the screening is to be deferred, that the owner execute an agreement to be filed with the property title acknowledging that screening would be installed should the screening on the adjacent property prove inadequate or be removed The Secretary reviewed the recommended conditions of approval and stated that de- ferral of the 8 ft. opaque fence was recommended_ for a maximum of five years. A discussion ensued relative to the screen fencing. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether a performance bond could be held long enough to insure that the fence be installed. The Secretary responded it could be held until all site improvements were completed. He also commented that, if the covenant were filed with the title to the property, it would indicate this requirement to any prospective owner at the time of title transfer. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether the fence could last longer than five years. The Secretary explained the homeowner's position which was that he had just finished repair and maintenance to the fence in the last season, and did not feel the fence would last much longer than five years. The Secretary continued that the definite period of deferral was recommended to ensure that the fence would be installed. A brief discussion ensued relative to the landscaping plan. In a response to a question from Chairman Engdahl, the Secretary stated that 'the primary existing plantings along the north property line were Lombardi poplars and lilac bushes._ Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, Mr. Fosdick, and Mr. Phil Johnson, his architect. In response to ,a question regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Fosdick stated that he was not certain of the hours because to his knowledge, this restaurant would be one of the first barbeque restaurants located in a suburban neighborhood. He stated the hours would possibly be from 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. depending upon the market. Chairman Engdahl explained that while there was no limit on the hours of operation, he was concerned that the lights of the. cars and on the site might disturb the neighborhood during late hours, and that - perhaps the 8 ft. high fence should be required at the outset. 9 -14 -78 -11- Mr. Johnson stated that the headlight glare should not reflect below the level o*f eaves of the neighboring house. In response from questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Fosdick explained the operation, which included the use of a specially designed hardwood - burning oven. He stated the restaurant was not currently a franchise and that there would be no liquor served on the premises. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, he stated that there was not really a comparable type restaurant in the area. The Commission reviewed the site plan and a discussion ensued. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated the site would be provided with an underground irrigation system. He also explained several revisions which would be required prior to the City Council meeting including provision for 2 1 1 inch diameter ash trees, rather than 12 inch diameter trees, and reconfiguration of the diagonal parking spaces to meet the ordinance standards In response to a question regarding the site lighting, Mr. Johnson stated the lighting would remain in the present location, but would be of a different type. In a brief discussion regarding the storage building, Chairman Engdahl commented that the changes to the building were only cosmetic, and that there would be no changes in the size. The Secretary noted that the building was an accessory building only and that only accessory uses, such as parking, could be permitted. Further discussion ensued relative to the screen fencing. Commissioner Theis stated he was concerned with the condition of the existing fence and thought perhaps it should be replaced immediately rather than deferred. He stated that the -hours of operation of the restaurant and the intensity of the use were greater than those of the use proposed under the previous application, and that he felt it made a difference in the need for screen fencing. Commissioner Jacobson inquired whether the fence could be deferred until it de- teriorated. The Secretary commented it was his feeling that the longer the fence was deferred, the less chance there would be that it would actually be installed. Commissioner Book stated that he felt the property should be brought up to the current ordinance standards at this time, and that he felt the five year con - tingency would be a headache for both the owner and the City in the tong run. He stated that he would not recommend approval of the application if installation• of the fence would be deferred. In further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the ordinance required 8 ft. opaque fence should be required with the approval RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78059 (Robert Fosdick) Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78059 submitted by Robert Fosdick subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Site grading, drainage, landscaping and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Existing underground fuel storage tanks shall be removed as directed by the Building Official. 4. A 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, 9 -14 -78 -12- 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7 Screening is required in accordance with Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances. 8. Plans showing required revisions shall be submitted prior to City Council review of the application. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS In other business, the Commission discussed the release of the performance bond submitted in support of Application No. 71031, the Bermel -Smaby office building located at 6500 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the landscaping which had been installed on the site did not accurately reflect that which had been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Planning Aide Laurie Thompson explained that while la- ndscaping of the site had not been done in complete accordance with the approved landscape plan, including four hardwood trees which were missing, generally the quality and quantity of the plantings was compatible with the approved site plan. The Commission discussed the site landscaping and it was the consensus that the landscaping was adequate and the performance bond could be released. OTHER BUSINESS Also in other business, the Secretary briefly reviewed several upcoming appli- cations. The Commission briefly discussed the need for careful consideration of rezoning on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, south of 57th Avenue North. Chairman Engdahl suggested that the Planning Consultant retained by the City be asked for input into the desirability of rezoning that area. BROOK PARK BAPTIST CHURCH PARKING LOT UPGRADING The City Engineer presented a plan for the parking lot of the Brook Park Baptist Church, located at 4801 - 63rd Avenue North. The Commission briefly reviewed and discussed the plan, and it was the consensus that the parking lot revisions shown on the plan would represent an upgrading of the property. APPLICATION NO. 78007 (Dr. Richard Check) The City Engineer also brief y reviewed some minor revisions in the landscaping treatment proposed for the area approved as joint parking between the Cross of Glory Church and the office building at 5901 Brooklyn Boulevard under Application No. 78007. He stated the Commission and Council had approved a treatment of wood chip and spreading junipers for the parking lot delineators. He stated the landscapers had advised the applicant that the junipers would have trouble growing in the delineators due to overlap by automobiles. He stated the City staff and the landscaper had recommended replacing the junipers with ash trees. The Com- mission discussed the proposed amendment to the site plan and it was consensus that the replacement of the junipers with ash was acceptable. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12 :00 a.m. 9 -14 -78 -13- Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA r REGULAR MEETING September 14, 19713 1. Call to Order: 8 :00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: August 24, 1978 4. Chairman's Explanatio: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. Jerry Harrington 78043 Site and Building Plan approval for a wholesale distribution center on the C2 property located at 4455 68th Avenue Borth. -6. Eloise Lowry 78053 Special Use Permit for home occupation to conduct porcelain art instructions at 6914 Lee Avenue North. 7. Blumentals Architecture, Inc. 78057 Site and Building Plan approval for an addition to existing industrial building at 1601 - 67th Avenue North. 8. Robert Fosdick 78059; Site and Building Plan approval for the conversion of an abandoned filling station for an eat in /carry out restaurant at 5001 Drew Avenue North. 9. Discussion Items: a Site Plan Revisions for Bermes Smaby Office Building b Pending Rezoning Requests c) Draft Ordinance Regarding Outlots 10. Other Business -11. Adjournment t� Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78043 Applicant: Jerry Harrington Location 4455 - 68th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks site and building plan approval for. a.:wholesale'.di.stributibn center consisting of three 20,000 sq, ft. office /warehouse buildings on the C2 property located at 4455 - 68th Avenue North. The property is located easterly of the NSP service facility and westerly of the Iten Chevrolet site. The applicant has submitted a letter briefly outlining his proposal. The Commission was presented conceptual drawings of the applicant's proposal on June 15, 1978, and the concept was briefly reviewed. He contends the property is not well suited for standard commercial /retail type uses due to its location, accessibility and the nature of neighboring land uses. This same applicant has received site and buielding plan approval, under Application 77049, in October, 1977, for an approximate 44,000 sq. ft. commercial speculative building proposed for multiple tenancies on this same site. He has not been able to market this concept, and desires to pursue the wholesale distribution., concept proposed in this application. The Commission, when reviewing this concept, on June 15, 1978 looked at three possible approaches to the concept. One, was to rezone the land to I -1, another was to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for certain special uses in the C2 District, such as wholesale distribution; and.the third was to accept an application for the proposed development and make a finding that the proposed use was similar -in nature to other uses in the C2 District. The Commission felt the third alternative was the most viable and agreed to proceed in this manner. This application was again reviewed by the Planning Commission at its August 10, 1978 meeting, and the proposal was discussed in greater detail: A number of concerns were raised with respect to this application, including parking for the site under-the proposed use, as well as future parking needs if the property y - wereto be converted to strictly retail uses. The applicant proposed the possibility of a restrictive covenant, similar to that used in the S and H Green Stamp involving property at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North, that would require additional parking to be inside of one of the three buildings if parking became a problem at a future date. There was also a discussion relating to a 1973 proposal for "mini warehouses" on this same site. That application was denied on the basis that the proposal was more appropriately a -use comprehended in the industrial district. The application was tabled by the Planning Commission on August 10, 1978 to give more time to pursue the possibility of a restrictive covenant, and to prepare plans to show that adequate parking for C2 uses could be provided on the site. The City Attorney has reviewed a proposed restrictive covenant and has responded to this matter through a memorandum (attached). His recommendation would be to abandon the idea of a restrictive covenant and use an ordinance amendment which the Planning Commission might find acceptable. I have had a follow -up conversation with the City Attorney regarding providing a Proof of Parking which would include using one of the buildings for parking if the need should arise in the future. It was pointed out that the City has previously required that inside parking be used if a situation would exist where the change in use might dictate that more parking is needed. Two incidents that come to mind involve the Mikros Engineering appli- cation and restrictive covenant of the Sand H Green Stamp application. -1_ 9 -14 -78 Application No. 78043 Page 2 The City Attorney has indicated that the restrictive covenant could be used in conjunction with the Proof of Parking to show that parking could be provided on the site should there be a future need. He does not necessarily recommend this for the reasons noted in.his memo. Another aspect of the application which needs careful review by the Planning Commission involves making a determination that the applicant `s proposed use is .similar in nature to other permitted uses in the C2 District. The applicant feels that his proposal is similar to the American Bakeries use. The bakery use is not specifically listed in the Zoning Ordinance as a permitted C2 use, and it is my understanding that a determination was that it was also similar in nature to other C2 uses. The question is whether or not the applicant's proposal is similar to C2 permitted uses, or should this type of proposal be 'limited to areas such as the I -1 District where there are already a number of buildings which have office. and warehouse uses. We will be prepared to review the plans in more detail and discuss the application at Thursday evening's meeting. Should approval of the application be recommended by the-Planning Commission, there should be an acknowledgment that the use is.similar in nature to other per- mitted C2 uses, and at least the following conditions of approval should be included: 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 landscape plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 5. An underground irrigation sys.tem.shall be install -ed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval comprehends parking to support the proposed wholesale distribution use; a restrictive covenant, approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the property to provide parking in one of three buildings should the wholesale distribution use cease,and be converted to another C2 use requiring more parking. 8,. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip merit shall be appropriately screened from view. -2- 9 -14 -78 J t t OLYMPIC INVESTMENTS INC: 7400 - 42nd AVE. N. • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 TELEPHONE: 533 -2529 r July 20th, 1978 Mr. Ron Warren CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 5800'- 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55443 . Gentlemen: We propose to build at 5544 - 68th Avenue North a Wholesale Distribution Center, consisting of 3- 20,000 square foot buildings with 10 % -15% office area and the balance in ware -- housing. The plan as drawn has 1/3 of the entire building area as office. This was an error on the Drawings and would be rect- ified before the Council Meeting. We have parking between Building l & 2, which would give us 48 parking stalls if we-were to design to the above 15% that is presently contemplated. The buildings are designed with high ceilings to enable tenants to drive large trucks into the interior if they desire. The buildings are not mini - warehouses with 8' garage doors and 9 to 10' ceiling height. We are looking at a typical tenant that needs large warehousing space. This type of tenant would have 1 or 2 office personnel. Sincerely, OLYMP C INVESTMENTS, INC. t� s By. Jer y E. Harringt,n, President i JEH:lp i t T MEMO TO: RON WARREN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION FROM: R.J. SCHIEFFER, CITY ATTORNEY RE PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 78043 (JERRY HARRINGTON) Restrictive covenants as a method of controlling parking are not recommended for the following reasons: 1. The City must go through a sham transaction of owning the property and then deeding it back to the applicant in order to place itself' in the chain of-title for enforcement purposes. 2. Real estate law is imbued with the rule against Perpetuities, an ancient concept which looks unfavorably upon owners of real estate who attempt to control future land uses. Therefore, restric- tive covenants are not favored in litigation and Courts can effectively remove 'them upon a change of circumstances. 3. The remedy for violation of restrictive - covenants involves a District Court civil action on the part of the City', the obtaining . of an injunction, and the problems involved in enforcing a judgment J P g J g of injunction, once it is obtained. By contrast, control of land by zoning ordinance is e�fected through criminal court procedures which are much faster and which carry more positive forms of inducement to abide by the regulation. 4. There are no enclosed parking ramps within the City or the suburban areas; certainly there are no one -story enclosed parking ramps' anywhere, leading to the conclusion that such a use of land is not economically feasible. If the property eventually does become I more suitable for a retail use, the use of a large portion of it for garaged parking facilities would make less sense than it does under present_ conditions. Attempting to enforce by restrictive covenant- a land use which is economic nonsense would find deaf I ears in the marketplace and the Courtroom. Based upon these considerations, my recommendation would be to abandon, the idea of a restrictive covenant and using an "ordinance amendment which the Planning Commission finds to be acceptable. R.J.S: DATED: SEPTEMBER 8, 1978 T I Y subject to the following restriction: If the premises are not used for a.wholesale distribution center as.permitted under Section 35 -322 of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center, relating to "C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT" in effect on , 1978, then one,o� the three buildings erected or to be erecte3 on said premises shall be used for-garage I i purposes (motor vehicle parking only) In said event the use of the premises shall be limited to permitted uses {or authorized special uses if a special use permit has been granted by the City Council ) which said use shal -1 comply 1 with the parking requirements of said ordinance.' The party art of the first part reserves to itself ' h o release e or modify either wholly or in the right t e].ea e, waiv y, Y art, P all or any of such restriction. This restriction may be enforced by the party of the first part by injunction or action for damages,. i but violation shall not work a forfeiture of title F - I• I I II. C` • 0 M At C { 1 A y ►r J 70TH ]t -- > ! > Q WILLOW LANE ` 4� ` ✓ �F ` PARK — o ¢ I z 150 la 67TH AV[ f a t U.S. POST I I o OFFICE t >-'a WATER c c -- TOWER AVE t t� p C 2 Q U1ZI t t Fir z I co / a - �- -- w / _. 67 TH AVE N. �►�'� 9d V. ��.i�F,Tiot1 ��11 q- °�Q - I N 77ay9 P V. 0 �e III. F w I N f, H TER +••• -+•� LAN E- W to • 1 i 1 � I �' ' 7 / TF AVE. fJ. 65TH AVE w O _ � z - ._. u 64 TH AVE N tf u, 0 ac _ PARK � QR ni N' B�Rp AVE I �TTI t 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78053 Applicant: Eloise Lowry Location: 6914 Lee Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The.applicant seeks a-special use permit for a home occupation to provide porcelain art instructions.in the basement of her home at 6914 Lee Avenue North.- The applicant has submitted a letter outlining the proposed home occupation which involves instructing other individuals in the basic procedures for brush strokes and the application of paint on porcelain and to also instruct basic art concepts in connection with porcelain painting. She proposes that three classes per week be held, and that each.session would run approximately eight weeks, once in the fall and once in the spring. She also indicates that she desires to have six or seven students per class. Attached with the agenda is a definition for special home occupations from Section .35 -900 of the City Ordinances, as well as the standards for special use permits found in Section 35 -220. The ordinance limits teaching or instruction in home occupations to more than one, but no more than four nonresident students at any given time. The applicant has been informed of this ordinance requirement. A public hearing has been scheduled, and.the neighboring property.owners have been notified of the meeting. The Building Inspector has inspected the applicant's home and reports that, with respect to code relating concerns, there should be no problem with this application. The o ission should discuss with the applicant proposals Th C mm- P P PP osals_ for off - street parking and the hours of operation. The Building Inspector has indicated that off- street parking for four nonresident students can be provided. The key consideration in any special home occupation is the determination that the proposed use is clearly secondary and incidental to.the primary use, which is residential. The following conditions of approval are suggested: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed ,use and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof.shall be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking related to the special use shall be off- street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. 4. Hours of operation shall be: 9 -14 -78 f C f July 24, 1978 Director of Plnning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center, F;innesota Dear Sirs: -I would like to apply for a special use permit for the purpose of holding porcelain art classes in my home. Purppee of the classes are to instruct o;t other individuals the basic procedures of brush strokes and the application of paint on porcelain, also to instruct basic art concept in connection with porcelain painting. There would be three classes per week each consisting of six or seven students each, with each session running 8 weeks once in the fall and onee in the spring , also the weeks would conincide with the school districts school schedule, by that I mean I would not be having classes when there is vacation time for the children. • Classes would be held during the day for two classes and I vve- ning class. These classes run•for a time peroid of two hours each class session, as like 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. Thank you, I remain, Eloise E. Lowry 6914 Lee Ave. North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 561 -83 69 fj • 1.l1C:311U l!J yva v �. va..a ... .. . -- •• — - - -- — -- - - - 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 - s;ubstantially:diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. - (c) " The establishment of the special . use will not impede-the normal and _ orderly development and improvement of surrounding. property for uses permitted in' the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,. egress and park so d - esigned as to minimize traffic congestion In th-e 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. C onditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission. may. recommend and the City Council may - impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, - maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the pro- tection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ordinance.. In all cases in which special use permits are granted., the City Council. may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be 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 gainr, the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. , Revocation and 'Extension of S pecial Use Permits When a special use-permii has. been issued pursuant the provisions of Ws* 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 th e subject property within one y^ar of the date the special u'sc permit is grarte: or unless before the expiration of the ' one , period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and suh.mitting to the Secretary of tide P Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting sucil extension and paying an additional fee of t t , Section 35 -900 (continued) Floor /area ratio_ The numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor . area of a building or buildings by the total area of the lot or parcel of land on which such building is located. Garage, private - An accessory building or -an accessory portion of the dwelling building intended for or used to store private passenger vehicles of the families resident upon the premises and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with automotive vehicles may be carried on. Green Strip - An area containing only vegetation such as grass, trees, flowers, hedges, and other related landscaping :materials, and maintained expressly for such purpose. Home Occupation - Any gainful occupation or profession, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, provided, such activity does not pro-- duce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not involve the use of accessory structures; and, further provided that said activity does not involve any of the following: repair, service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; over- the - counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises; or the employment of persons on the premises, other than those customarily residing on the premises. E_ xamples Include: dressmaking; secretarial services; professional offices; answering service; individual music or art instruction; individual hobby craft; child day care (defined as the care of not more than five (5) nonresident children and provided the facility and operation are properly licensed by the County, and provided a record of said license is on file with the City) ; .and the like. Home Occupati ecia - Any gainful occupation or profession, aWrovved by special use permission, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit wMAh said dwelling or involving not more than one accessory use permitted by S . n 35 -310 or Section 35 -311, and which involves any of the following: s ociC -" tide incidental to the performance of the service; repair, service, or manufac ring w'" h requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; the emplo nt o the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person who is �a nonresdfl I" e the premises; the teaching of more than one (1) but not more than four' (4) nzrrnt students any given time; or the need for" not more than two (2) parking spac_:m i:h addition to spaces required for the persons, residing on the premises; and p A the activity: is clearly incidental and secondary to the residental use of the.pizenbses including the dwelling, and permitted accessory buildings or instaslatio s e does not produce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyonitie.¢ aries of the premises; does not consist of over - the - .counter sales of m.eiajiandfi3e pro duced off the premises. Examples include: barber and beauty services, s1loe sr, photography studio, group lespons, saw sharpening, motor-driven a;�pliaire small engine repair, and the like.' Hotel - A buil.ci-4 which provides a common entrance, lobby, and alAtw and in which g is commonly offered with or without meals for periods of tha n a w-w-'I c cr WILLOW LANE PARK i Wid me= NO � y WATE Eamon '� MEN <O INN Iloilo lonsill goollooll Illusion Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78057 Applicant: Blumentals, Inc. Location: 1601 67th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval for a 12,010 sq. ft. addition to an existing industrial and office building located at 1601 - 67th Avenue North. The existing building was approved under Application No. 77053 on August 3, 1977. The reason for the addition to the existing building is to provide additional space for a new tenant for automotive parts distribution. No additional office space is comprehended for..the.addition. Based on ordinance formulas, 67 parking spaces would be required for the site with the addition. The applicant has proposed that 62 parking spaces be provided, and has shown on a Proof of Parking that the required 67 spaces can be provided on the site. With the addition to the existing building, the applicant also proposes that the loading dock area be expanded to accommodate the addition. Also, the applicant has inquired about the possibility of moving a required 8 ft. high opaque wood fence which extends northerly from the existing building and provides screening for the parking area on the north portion of the site. He feels that the fence would be better located close to the existing property line and would adequately screen the location of the fence R property. This parking lot from the adjacent 1 r p y J p 9 P would provide easier access to the 50 ft. green area between the property line and the existing building for maintenance purposes. The City is presently holding a.performance bond for various site improvements comprehended under Application No. 77053 and it is felt that the bond amount could adequately cover any additional improvements. We will be prepared to review the plans for the addition in more detail at Thursday evening's meeting. Approval of this application 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 p ermits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are'subject to review and approval by the City Engineer ineer rior to the issuance of permits. PP Y 9 p . 3. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The current Performance Agreement being held for Application No. 77053 shall be retained to assure completion of any'additional site improvements. i 9 -14 -78 tog + A vr- Eade. crown Fo-(m mpt Hurnbold+ n . o au t�- u I dt _ � �bo ua. Vownf H ac.�a�tfia. S pec'. a i H I rre -,:) 6 acao Nay - YO , 7 19 F 0'x I r H L ► TSC H a P r5 VE No. Conirol F$oi EL `ack I\n Ln�cr i v Be r e , , Hi i1 UC W _ � � S A R-s Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78059 Applicant: Robert Fosdick Location: 5001 Drew Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval to convert the existing abandoned- service station at 5001 Drew Avenue North to eat in /carry out barbeque restaurant. The site was the subject of a proposal of March of this year (Appli- cation No. 78018) to upgrade the existing service station to accommodate a new service use by Assurance Glass. That proposal has not materialized, and we have received a letter from the owner of the property, Mr. Sigurd Follese, to that effect. The applicant's proposal comprehends remodeling the service station for a restaurant use, and to utilize an existing storage building on the westerly portion of the site to provide some employee parking. He proposes to have 28 restaurant , seats and a maximum number of employess of four at any given time. Based on the ordinance formula, 16 parking spaces would be required. The plans indicate 14 parking stalls around the proposed restaurant and two employee stalls in the adjacent storage building. The plans comprehend rejuvenation of the site with sod, plantings and trees. Two curb cuts are proposed, the entrance to the site on 50th Avenue North and an exit onto Drew Avenue North. The exterior finish of the restaurant would consist of diagonal board siding and painted concrete block, and.the accessory building . would have a similar treatment except for the side facing 50th Avenue North where they proposed to leave the existing brick finish. The ordinance requires•a 35 ft. greenstrip and opaque screening where C2 abuts R1 property. The property owner at 5013 Drew Avenue North r h presently has a six foot high opaque fence that provides screening from the C2 site. Also, there is presently an existing six foot stockade fence apparently erected to screen the service station from the residential properties. The applicant proposes to re locate,the stockade fence to provide screening for the trash receptacle and some ; *z -'of the parking. We are attempting to contact the neighboring property owner as was done when Application No. 78018 was considered, to see if he still feels the present six foot fence is adequate screening. Provision should be made that adequate screening consistent with ordinance standards be provided by the owner of the property should this arrangement not be satisfactory. Various plan revisions have been requested of the applicant, and we will be_ prepared to review them in more detail at Thursday's meeting. Approval would be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building - Official with to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Site grading, drainage, 1-andscaping and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance • of permits. 3. Existing underground fuel storage tanks shall be removed as directed by the Building Official. 9 -14 -78 t _ Application No. 78059 Page 2 4. A.Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of im- pr site improvements. � Pr P 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by City Engineer. 6. Outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. Property owners shall execute'an agreement, as approved by the City, acknowledging that the ordinance required 8 ft. opaque fence will be provided should screening -on other properties prove inadequate or be removed; said agreement.shall be filed With the title to the property prior to the issuance of permits. 9 -14 -78 . a . • 3 r a y � &(gL 5182 WEST BROADWAY • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429 • 4612) July 13th, 1978 TO: Brooklyn Center Office ' RE: 3608 50th Avenue North 5001 Drew Avenue North At this time we have no one of record with any financial interest in our properties, as listed above, Mr. William Fosdich has expressed an'interest in these same properties, and we are willing to work with him on his concepts. • Thank you, SigurrE. /ollese' SEF:ch 35 AvE Pr w Ly- 4 vc 54TH AvE tL 2 5 RD IL w u 1 t o T' L T R5 %KESIDE PARK v 5 A E N ST -� 51 ST AVE N. � •` { HAPPY HOLLOW PARK a. T AVE - w. O z �} (� 1 O ��(( ��t✓�( �. j r - o a t - -- to I lb bu T H 1 1 > 400 N IV O J A G 5 4 T H A V E N -^ IALG ` } 1 Y RYAN LAKE General Information Sheet Item No. 9 a Site Plan Revisions for Bermel Smaby Office Building During the review of the Performance Bond for Bermel Smaby office building, located at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard, it was determined that the site improvements were not completely consistent with the approved plans. If you have the opportunity to drive by the site, please review and your observations of the site improvements will be discussed. Some trees have not yet been installed according to the approved plans and various shrubberies not on the approved plan have been installed. The . performance bond for this office building has been held for some time and we would like to proceed to release it. Item No. 9 b - Pending Rezoning Requests We will be prepared to discuss with the Commission, various rezoning inquiries that we have had so that the Commission might be able to familiarize itself better with these areas. Item No. 9 c - Draft Ordinance Regarding Outlots We hope to have a draft ordinance regarding the definitions for Outlots for the Commission's review Thursday evening. Y 9- 14 -78. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO HEALTH AND SANITATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8-100.26. Social or Service Agency shall mean [ any organization not organized for profit, and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.] a Minnesota nonprofit corporation substantially devoted to public service or public charity, established and regularly operating within the City for a period of more than one year, the bulk of those members and shareholders reside within the City. ction S e �_108.01. Sour ces of Food - General. All food in all food establish - ments shall be clean, wholesome, free from spoilage, adulteration, and misbranding and shall be prepared, processed, handled, packaged, transported, and stored so as to be protected from contamination and spoilage and shall be safe for human consumption. No home prepared food shall be kept or used in any food establishment, - except that home prepared foods other than readily perishable foods may be kept or used in schools, [and] in houses of worship, and by Social or Service Agencies at Itinerant Food Establishments. No more than three Itinerant Food Establishment sha b issued to a Social 'n r foods e licenses authorizing the sale of home p 11 or Service Agency in any calendar year. All food received or used in all food establishments shall be from sources approved by the Health Authority. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 . Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 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 corner lot faces - the "cross street, " the front yard setback of the interior lots may conform - to - the side yard setbacks of - the corner primary structures. Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated 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 its legal publication. Adopted - this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) • MEMO TO: GERALD SPLINTER, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FROM: R.J. SCHIEFFER, CITY ATTORNEY RE: VARIABLE SIDE -YARD SETBACK ON DIFFERENT SIZED CORNER LOTS IN THE SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING ZONE FACTS This Memorandum is based on the fact that prior to 1957, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brooklyn Center contained provisions establishing the minimum width of a corner lot at 75 feet and the mini- I mum side -yard setback at 15 feet. In 1957, the City Zoning Ordinance was amended to establish a minimum width for corner lots at 90 feet and I a minimum side -yard- setback for corner lots at 25 feet. At the time of the Ordinance change there were a number of 75 foot corner lots with single- family dwellings and an accessory structure built within 15 feet of the - property line in adherence to the then existing setback. At the . time of the Ordinance change, there also existed a number of vacant l i l corner lots 75 feet in width. The effect of that Ordinance change was to impose on all lots of record, whether vacant or improved, a side -yard setback requirement of 25 feet. Some 20 years later, in 1976, the City Council amended the setback Ordinance to permit construction with a 15 foot setback on all lots which were of record prior to the 1957 Ordinance change. This amendment dealt with two issues. First it was recognized that homes which were constructed on 75 foot lots with a 15 .foot setback prior to 1957 could not be remodeled, rebuilt, or substantially altered on that portion of the house extending into the 25 foot setback 'area, without being in technical violation of the Zoning Code. The effect of that Ordinance change was to eliminate that technical violation and permit homes which existed prior to 1957 to be remodeled under the rules which existed at the time they were constructed. Second, the Ordinance provided that 2 as to those lots which were vacant in 1957 but already platted with •their size and shape unalterably established, the 1957 rules would be applied also. The effect of this Ordinance change was to "grandfather in" all lots which were planted and placed of record prior to the Ordinance change. It is a common practice in Zoning Regulations to "grandfather in" existing land uses and structures when Ordinance changes render them non - conforming. This practice is optional and not mandatory. Where the Council chooses not to "grandfather in" the non- conforming uses, cases which meet the hardship standards are handled by variance. Up to this point in the discussion, the procedures followed by the City and the Ordinance Amendments follow patterns typical for suburban municipalities in the Twin Cities /:Metropolitan Area, to wit: minimum .widths and minimum setbacks for lots are established; the Council deter- mines to increase minimum widths and increase minimum setbacks; the Council (though belatedly)" determines to "grandfather in" those lots which existed at the time of the setback and lot width change. The issue in this case has been created by the fact that 46 corner lots were created after 1957 with a width of 75 feet. There is apparently no information on how these lots were created, the timing of their creation, whether it was by platting or by metes and bounds descriptions, whether the lots were divided and remained unrecorded until after 1957, or whether they were simply platted in violation of the post 1957 requirements. Regardless of the manner in which the lots were created, it appears that the 25 foot side -yard setback was enforced after 1957. One such home, having been created and placed of record after 1957 and having a home built upon it adhering to the 25 foot side -yard setback, has come before the City Council with a request for a variance to encroach into the 3 established setback. That variance was properly denied since there was no showing of a hardship or uniqueness or other fulfillment of the standards for variance. As a result of the deliberations of the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has requested this Memorandum discussing the legal ramifications of establishing a 15 foot side -yard setback for corner lots which are 75 feet in.width, and a 25 foot side -yard setback for corner lots which are 90 feet in width. AUTHORITY FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS With the exeption of fire districts, which were approved as a municipal regulatory device in Minnesota in 1906, setbacks have been recognized as a valid zoning tool longer than any other regulatory device. Although decisions in the early 1900's held that setback provisions were an invalid taking of property without •compensation, between 1915 and 1920 the leading authorities had reversed this trend and.courts- generally were approving setback requirements as a valid exercise of the police power under the common law, as long as it could be demonstrated that the setbacks protected the health, safety and - welfare of the citizens. See Rhyne, Municipal Law § 32 =14. Following the landmark case by the U.S. Supreme Court of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co . 272 U.S. 365, 71 Led 303 (1926), which firmly established zoning as a valid exercise of the police power, setback provisions were among the first regulatory tools to be unequivocally approved by the Federal Courts. The U.S. Supreme Court in Gorieb v. Fox 274 U.S. 603, 71 Led 1228 (1927) stated that establishing a reasonable setback requirement is a proper exercise of the police power, is not a taking under the right of condem- nation, and does not deny due process of law or equal protection of the laws. This same principle was recognized the same year in Minnesota in the case of State ex rel. McKusick v. Houghton 171 Minn 231, 213 N.W. 907 (1927). In this case the Minneapolis City Council revoked a permit 4 hich had been granted by the Building Inspector in violation of the Ordinance establishing a setback line. The Minnesota Supreme Court up- held the revoking of the permit. These principles have been reaffirmed numerous times by the Minnesota Court. See Curry v. Young 285 Minn. 387 397, 173 N.W. 2d 410 (1969). The authority for establishing setback requirements has been reaffirmed by the Minnesota Legislature also, by providing specific authority to a municipality to regulate 11 ... Lt/he location—size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population,... . See M.S.A § 462.357 Subdi- vision 1. VALUES PROTECTED BY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Municipalities have developed a variety of regulatory devices in the wake of the Zoning authority pro a ided by M.S.A. § 462.357, including the establishment of Zoning Districts regulating density, regulating the height. of buildings, and the like.. These regulations must, of course, be directly related to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community, although where specific Statutory Authority exists, the burden of showing that a partic- ular regulation affects the health, safety and welfare is much lighter. Of all the regulatory devices, setback requirements are among the easiest to justify in terms of their reasonable relation to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. A discussion of the Values Protected by Setback Requirements are setout below. Light, Air and View The depressing experiences of City Dwellers both in the United States and elsewhere which were compounded by overcrowding g eed no further elucidation. Every source of literature from the 18th Century novelist to the 20th Century City Planner carries a body of writing detailing the disease, filth, crime and violence which accompanies 5 • overcrowded neighborhoods. Although City Planning existed prior to 1950, it was after 1950 that Cities recognized, in Planning Documents and Zoning Ordinances that just plain elbow room was ample tonic for a society sickened by overcrowding. The flow of air to alleviate a hot,' oppressive atomosphere, the provision for sunlight to attack insect and germ breeding areas, and provision for open vistas to lighten the oppres- sive atmosphere created by the mass and bulk of large structures were guaranteed'thorugh various devices in City Ordinances, the most notable of which was the setback provision. Setback provisions are reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens due to their providing light, air and view. See State ex rel. Mc Kusick v. Houghton supra Dust, Noise and Fumes Along with providing light, air and view, setback • requirements are justified in that they eliminate negative elements from the atmosphere of the neighborhoods by placing the living areas a distance from dust, noise and fumes created by traffic movements and borne on air 'currents. The value of breathing clean air free from dust needs no justification. The effects of carbon monoxide, though more subtle, are widely recognized in an age which is dominated by the use of the automobile. The effect of noise on human beings is more recently being explored and is dramatized by the construction of_huge noise barriers along freeways, by Federal Regulations prohibiting noise in certain industries above certain levels, and in the high visibility of the demand for privacy among most citizens. Esthetic Considerations Although esthetic considerations so heavily • involve private opinion that they are to be avoided, for the most part, in justifying Zoning Regulations, it is increasingly recognized by the Courts that esthetic considerations, when coupled with other valid links 6 to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, form an adequate • legal basis for the establishment of setbacks and other Zoning requirements This principle was first recognized by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company v. The City of Minnetonka a case permitting the phasing out of billboards and was more recently upheld with respect to setback requirements in Curry v. Young supra I;n Curry v. Young the Court stated that owners who objected to a violation of the setback presented valid arguments when esthetic values were taken ,into consideration. The Court noted that Zoning Ordinances which require a definite setback so that appearances will be uniform, are a proper exercise of the police power in Minnesota. Uniformity, Visibility, and Sight Distance Although Curry v. Young supra validates uniformity of setback for the sake of appearance, uniformity plays another vital role in setback regulation. A structure placed on • the corner created by two intersecting streets blocks a driver's view of the intersecting street until such time as the vehicle enters the setback area. If structures are permitted close to the street, lack of visibility becomes -a serious hazard for moving traffic. This may not be a serious problem with intersections which are controlled by stopsigns or signals, ' however, the majority of residential intersections are uncontrolled and traffic generally flows through them at a rate of speed which may vary from 20 to 40 miles per hour. Adequate setback on corner lots increases sight distance and provides street visibility to the extent that the danger of motor vehicle collision at uncontrolled intersections is greatly reduced. Uniformity of setback plays another vital role in that it provides street and side -yard visibility for the home owner. Parents monitor he a i i- t ct v ties of their young - children by sight and sound, or more correctly 7 stated, by the lack of sight and sound. Parent monitoring of children's activities is such an automatic response that we often forget that it exists. Whether it is watching for a school bus, for a car pool, or children playing in or near the street, the home owner whose observations are restricted by structures placed nearer the street than other adjacent structures is subjected to an almost imperceptible annoyance and lack of control in everyday activities. While it may be difficult to point to a specific instance where a lack of visibility has created a serious injury or hardship, it is precisely this type of subtle difference which, if multiplied by the countless other subtle differences, which can reduce the quality of life which has become too much discussed in recent months. In summary, the values which are protected by setback requirement are numerous and each of these values must be given consideration when setback • changes are contemplated. EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEES Article I, 3 -2 of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws all citizens. Simply stated, the provision means that all persons who are similarly situated will receive the same privileges and be subject to the same regulation. Where a City Council considers establishing a greater setback for persons who own a 90 foot corner lot then for persons who own -a 75 foot corner lot, the justification for that difference in treatment must be somehow reason- ably related to the health, safety and welfare of the community as a whole. When dealing with setbacks, health, safety and welfare is translated into the specifics which we have discussed earlier, namely: light, air, view, dust, noise, fumes, visual uniformity, esthetic considerations, street • visibility, sight y, g t distance. If any logical connection can be established between one of those values and the greatersetback imposed on the 90 foot 8 corner lot, the difference in the setback would be justified. It • would appear that persons living on a 75 foot lot have as much need for light, air and view as persons living on a 90 foot lot. It might justifiably be stated that the person living on the smaller lot has a greater need since, presumably, structures are closer together on the smaller lot. Dust, noise and fumes are elements of street traffic, largely, and are not affected by lot size. Esthetic considerations do not appear to play a part since a 15 foot setback looks the same on a 90 foot lot as it does on a 75 foot lot. The need for street visibility and sight distance is a traffic consideration and the lot size is irrelevant to the amount of setback needed to provide adequate sight distance and street visibility. To put it simply, if 15 feet is enough, then 15 feet is enough, regardless of the width of the corner •lot. Uniformity requires no discussion except to say that if uniformity is to be valued, as we have previously stated, then lack of uniformity reduces value. In summary, it does not appear that the size of the setback is at all related to the size of the lot as long as we are considering lots of 75 feet in width or greater. Setback does become related to lot size when the lot becomes so small that it is not possible to construct a dwelling on the site. That matter has been given no consideration in this Memorandum since, for purposes of single - family dwelling construction, 75 feet of width is a standard demension. PRESENT LEGAL CONSTRAINTS There are no Minnesota Supreme Court cases dealing precisely with the issue at hand (hence the long - dissertation). • There is, however, Supreme Court Case Law from other states and a Minnesota Statutory provision which indicate that a dual standard for 9 • setbacks in same Zoning District would not be approved. M.S.A. § 462.357 Subdivision 1 generally sets out the authority under which a municipality may regulate the many facets of Zoning. The language of that Subdivision goes on to state as follows:. The regulations shall 1 be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures or land and for each class a or kind of use throughout such District, but the regulations in one District may differ from those in other Districts. This language is unequivocal. It clearly requires that uniformity of regulation within a Zoning District be strictly observed. Even with its restrictive language, however, it is my opinion that if a sufficient justification could be established; if a direct link to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens could be forged, a dual standard of regulation would be within the Statutory framework. 1 . The particular issue under consideration has not been widely litigated Y g throughout the nation. There is no recent litigation since most issues relating to setbacks have been pretty well resolved over the period of the last 50 years. The following quotation from Rhyne Municipal Law 32 -15, note 21, typifies the few Court decisions which do exist Width requirements for side -yards which vary with the size of the frontage—are not definite and have no substantial relation to the health,.safety and welfare of the community. See also Holden v. Conner 257 Mich. 580 241 N.W. 915 (1932) State v. Welsch 131 S.W. 2d 364, (Mo. App.) (1939); Scholl v.. Yeadon 148 Pa. super. 601 26 A 2d, 135 (1942); Auken v. Kimmey 141 Misc. 117 252 NYS 343 (1931). CURRENT TREATMENT OF SUBSTANDARD CORNER LOTS: In light of the discussion in preceeding paragraphs of the need for uniformity of regulation, it will not escape notice that our current Ordinance structure provides a • 15 foot setback for 75 foot corner lots which were placed of record prior to 1957 and a 25 foot setback for all lots placed of record thereafter. r This distinction, based entirely on a particular point in time, would A 10 of normally justify the difference in treatment and would constitute a denial of equal protection. However, it is well recognized, both as a matter of logic and as a matter of law that if a City ever changes any Zoning Regulation, it will create this duality which results in different treatment for seemingly equal things. A Zoning Ordinance cannot remain static, but must be changed in accordance with more enlightened viewpoints and changing conditions. When an Ordinance is changed and a new regulation is placed in effect, the Council must decide whether the new regulation will apply to buildings which existed prior to the change. In many cases, application of a new regulation to existing structures would require them to be torn down, to be altered, to be moved or to be converted to other uses. Therefore, the concept of the non- conforming use, which we commonly call a "grandfather clause" is used and �a proved by the Courts even though it involves unequal treatment for persons similarly situated. The "grandfather clause" permits structures w ich existed at the of the Ordinance change to continue to exist U der the old regulations and to be repaired and rebuilt under the old r gulations simply because the economic upheaval which would be caused b requiring conformance would so far outweigh the municipal obJectives t at change would be unthinkable without the "grandfather clause" The use of the "grandfather clause" is permissible precisely because its 1�nkage to a particular point in time causes it to operate in a random f shion,_without discrimination. The use of a "grandfather clause" links to a point in time, creates a permissible 'starting point for a n w regulation without creating an invidious distinction which would be ohibited by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. By linking the distinction to a point in time, rather than to a particular person, a class of persons, °a class of dwellings, a,size of dwelling, or a size of lot, the operation of the Ordinance falls within the requirements of . 11 • the equal protection clause. As Mr. Justice Mussmanno, late of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court once wrote, "of course the Ordinance discrim inates amoung persons, but ,.not all discriminations are Unconstitutional." See also McCavic v. DeLuca '233 Minn. 372, -46 N.W. 2d 873 (1951). R.J.S. DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1978 tjh • MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: September 20, 1978 SUBJECT: Community Development Schedule and Recommended Projects The City has been contemplating the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for the better part of 1978. During that time, a number of memos relative to program requirements, program assurances and possible projects have been written. If Brooklyn Center is to participate in.the program, it is imperative that a number of actions take place now. First the City must enter into a joint cooperation agreement with Hennepin County indicating its desire to participate in the Urban County program. Currently, the City Council has given tentative approval to that joint cooperation agreement subject to the City Attorney's review. For your information you should know that joint cooperation agreement required by Hennepin County has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and that it has been agreed to by approximately thirty- seven (37) other communities. It should also be understood that the County staff • will not support any recommendations on the City's part to amend or modify any 4 aspect of the agreement. Second the City must designate a nonelected, non - appointed individual to represent Brooklyn Center on the Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan. Because there are no other Council meetings between now and the October 13, 1978 deadline, the City must appoint an individual at the September 25, 1978 Council meeting. Should the City Council fail to appoint someone at that time, it would not preclude the City from participating in the Community Development Program, however, the City would not be represented on the citizen participation board which acts as an advisory board to the Hennepin County Commissioners. Assuming that the City enters into the joint. cooperation agreement, a number of projects must be completed prior to the end of the year. Of immediate concern will be the completion of a citizen participation plan. A recommended plan is included in this memo for your review and should be subject to an administrative public hearing to be held in early October. With the completion of the citizen participation format, the City will then develop a community development program for both a one (1) year and three (3) year period. The City will also be developing a one (1) and three -(3) year Housing Assistance Plan. The development of a com- munity program and the housing assistance plan are subject to community partici- pation. and will require a minimum of two (2) public hearings. An administrative public hearing was held July 25 of this year to receive citizen comment relative to the City's participation in the Community Development Program, the use of such funds and citizen involvement. While only three (3) individuals attended that hearing, no comments were offered at that time. Mr. Splinter -2- September 20, 1978 Project Recommendations • With consideration being given to the latitude granted the City in the regulations, the following projects are recommended with the accompanying percentages re- flecting funding levels based upon an estimated one million.dollar appropriation over the next three (3) years. Community Development Block Grant Projects (Estmated Dollars ( Project) % Over Three (3) Years I. Housing* 38 $ 380,000 II. Handicap Projects Curb & Gutter 2 20,000 Planning 1 10,000 Park Accessibility 42 420,000 III. Park Development 10 100,000 IV. Administration 7 70,000 Total 100% $1,000,000 • *Housing projects would be determined upon identified needs. I would anticipate that a majority of this money would go to rehab grants and loans. It has been previously stated that the Community Development Block Grant Program is primarily a housing related program. Because of the emphasis placed on housing and because Brooklyn Center would be developing a Housing Assistance Plan as part of the application process, and committing itself to the goals set forth in that plan, a significant amount of the Community Development Program should be directed towards accomplishing those goals. Assuming that Brooklyn Center would be receiving approximately one million dollars over the life of the program, it is suggested that approximately 38% of that total amountbe earmarked for housing related projects. The exact mix of rehabilitation grants and loans, land write- downs, acquisitions and other related projects will become more clearly exact as the Housing Assistance Plan is developed, identifying housing needs and estab- lishing goals. The total amount recommended for the housing related projects should have a significant long term impact upon the quality of the housing stock in Brooklyn Center. It is recommended that handicapped related projects be primarily geared towards making the City's park system accessible to handicapped individuals. Towards that end, a small portion of the Community Development Block Grant would be slated towards the identification of such barriers throughout the community. Within the park system itself, it would be anticipated that parking lots would be paved as well as walkways and that playground apparatus would be acquired that would Mr. Splinter -3- September 20 1978 accomodate handicapped individuals. Such playground apparatus would also be usable by nonhandicapped individuals and thus create an integrated, accessible park system. Brooklyn Center has made significant efforts towards the elimination of physical barriers in its sidewalk system. However, there are a few isolated hindrances to handicapped individuals within that system. Part of the planning and identification money would go towards identifying such barriers and provide for their removal. A total of 45% of the Community Development monies would be earmarked for handicapped related projects. Park development projects being recommended are primarily those dealing with Central Park. It is recommended that 10% of the Community Development funds be used for park development. It would be my recommendation that Community Development monies be used as matching funds for eligible projects for which the City has or would receive other grants for. It is recommended that the City use 7% of the Community Development Block Grant funds it would receive to defray the City's cost associated with the planning and administration of the grant program. It has been previously noted that the recom- mended administration costs concur with the experience of other communities in- volved in the administration planning of the Community Development Block Grant Program. Citizen Participation Program • Technically, under the Urban County approach to community development, Hennepin County is the applicant while Brooklyn Center is a participant with the applicant. Under that arrangement, Brooklyn Center is not required to develop a citizen participation plan. However, it has been the inclination of the Council in the past to involve citizens in the development of such programs. The fallowing rec- ommended citizen participation plan addresses itself to the requirements of the Community Development Block Grant Program. Brooklyn Center Community Development Citizen Participation Plan In order to encourage citizen participation in the planning, development and assessment of the Brooklyn Center Community Development Block Grant Program, the City of Brooklyn Center will use established citizen advisory commissioners as the receiving mechanism for citizen comments on the development, planning and assessment of the program. Adminis ve citizen p trative hearings will be held to receive input relative to the imple � mentation of the program and complaints. From each Commission, one delegate will be selected to represent that Commission on the citizen participation board. In addition, two (2) additional at -large representa tives will be selected from the community to assure adequate representation of low and moderate income individuals, minorities and residents of areas significantly affected by community development projects. Adequate infor- mation about the program will be available to the citizens including: Mr. Splinter -4- September 20, 1978 (a) total amount of the block grant funds, (b) the range of eligible activities, (c) schedule of local meetings, (d) the role of citizens in the program, . and (e) a summary of other important program requirements. I. Planning and Development A. Community Development and Housing Program 1. The following citizen advisory commission's shall each have a representative on the community development citizen's participation board: a. P la nning b. Conservation c. Human Rights d. Park and Recreation e. Housing 2. Two at -large representatives shall be selected from the community with consideration being given to a balance of low and moderate income people, minorities and individuals from impacted neighborhoods. 3. The citizen participation board shall hold at least two (2) public hearings to accomodate all concerns and recommendations from the citizens relative to the development of the Brooklyn Center Community Development Block Grant Program. 4. All planning and development in section 1 -A shall include both the annual program and the three (3) year program. 5. The citizen participation board shall report its recommendations to the City'Council. B. Housin Assistance Plan (HAP) . 1 The Housing Commission shall be the responsible board for receiving all citizen comments and concerns relative to the development of the housing assistance plan. 2. The Housing Commission shall hold a public hearing to receive citizen input relative to the development of a housing assistance plan. 3. Section B -1 shall include both the annual program and the three (3) year program. II. Program Implementation There shall be at least one (1) annual administrative public hearing to receive citizen comments, questions and concerns relative to the im- plementation of a community development program. III. Program Performance Assessment A public hearing shall be held by the citizen's advisory board at the end of each program year to afford citizens an opportunity to assess and submit comments in all aspects of Brooklyn Center's Community Develop- ment Performance, including the performance of applicants, grantees ! and contractors. In the Brooklyn Center Annual Community Development Performance Report, copies of the comments submitted by citizens re- lative to the City's community development performance will be included. The annual report shall include an assessment of those comments and a summary of actions taken in response to the comments received. s J • Mr. Splinter -5- September 20, 1978 IV. Complaints Complaints relative to the planning, implementation, assessment, or • any other aspect of the Community Development Program shall be sub - mitted to the City Manager. A written response shall be made to the complainant within fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt. V. Public Hearings - A. Notice of all public hearings shall be published in the nonlegal section of the Brooklyn Center Post at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. B. The notice shall state the time, place, date and topics to be considered. C . Notice of public hearings shall also be posted in the City Hall in a conspicuous place, VI. Contingency Plans and /or Amendments A. All contingency plans and /or amendments to the Community Develop- ment Program shall be subject to the citizen review process. Conclusions If Brooklyn Center is to continue with a Community Development Program, it is recommended that an administrative public hearing be held October 11, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers to receive citizen comment relative to the recommended citizen participation board plan and to receive comments relative to the use of Community Development funds. Further, assuming a favorable response on the part of the Council towards the comments received and towards the Community Development Program, it would be recommended that this plan be brought back to the Council on October 16 for adoption and that the Council be prepared at that time to designate representatives from the five commissions to the board plus the two at -large representatives. i { f l z MEMO TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Andy Alberti Building Inspector DATE: September 22, 1978 The following is the result of an inspection performed at Brookdale Ten September 21, 1978. The items listed will be items shown on an inspection dated September 5, 1978 which have not been corrected as of - this inspection. Building No. 3305 Priority No. 1 1. Northeast and northwest exterior entry lights are inoperable. 12 -504 2. Broken electrical outlet in corridor near apartment No. 7 12 -504 Priority No. 3 1. Green area is weedy and has bare spots. 12 -317 2. Exterior wood siding on south side of dwelling is loose. 12 -702 Building No. 3307 Priority No. 1 1. Lower level exit sign at fire wall separation between east and west corridor is broken. FPC -11.2 2. Northeast exterior entry light is inoperable. 12 -504 Priority No. 2 1. Laundry room window cranks are missing. 12 -709 (Window can be opened and has no screen.) 2. Southwest entrance handrail to lower level is loose. 12 -406 Priority No. 3 1. Green area is weedy and has bare spats 12 -317 2. Concrete steps at south entrance are spalied. 12 -40 Gerald G. Splinter -2- September 22, 1978 Building No. 3311 i Priority No. 1 1. Broken wall outlet plate at corridor near apartment No. 204. 12 -504 Priority No. 2 1. Laundry room window cranks are missing. 12 -709 (Can be opened and have no screens) Building No. 3315 Priority No. 1 1. Building address is missing numerals on southwest entrance 3 -104 Building No. 3403 Priority No. 1 1. Northeast corridor entrance light is inoperable. 12 -504 2. Corridor wall outlet damaged and has no cover plate near apartment No. 108. 12 -504 3. Third level fire door near apartment No 208 does not close and latch properly and has broken closure. FPC -11.1 4. Exit lights damaged near apartments No. 204, 206 and 208. FPC -11.2 Priority No. 2 1. Laundry room window cranks are missing. 12 -709 (Windows can be opened and have no screens.) 2. Entrance handrail near apartment No. 7 is damaged. 12 -406 Priority No. 3 1. Green area is weedy and has bare spots. 12 -307 Gerald G. Splinter -3 September 22, 1978 Building No. 3409 Priority No. 1 1. Southwest exterior entrance light is damaged. 12 -504 Priority No. 2 1. Laundry window cranks are missing. 12 -709 Priority No. 3 1. Siding is missing from west exterior walls.. 12 -702 2. Siding is damaged on east exterior walls. 12 -702 Building No. 3413 Priority No. 1 1. Northwest exterior entrance light is damaged. 12 -504 Priority No. 3 1 Laundry room window screen is missing. 12 -703 2. Fence section is missing at the west end of parking area. 12 -706 3. Green area is weedy and has bare spots. 12 -317 x. Building No. 3417 Priority No . 1 1. Exterior southeast entrance light is inoperable. 12 -504 Priority No. 2 1. Carpet is worn on northeast stairway. 12 -704 2. Corridor wall is cracked on third level near northwest exit door. 12 -704 Gerald G. Splinter -4- September 22, 1978 Priority No. 3 1. Northeast sidewalk is deteriorated. 12 -708 Building No. 3421 Priority No. 2 1. Laundry room window cranks are missing. 12 -709 (Crank operators have been removed, windows can be opened and have no screen.) 2. Loose handrail at northeast stairway to second floor. 12 -406 Building No. 3425 Priority No. 3 1. Green area is weedy on south side of building. 12 -317 Building No. 3429 Priority No. 1 1. Building address numerals are missing on northwest entrance. 3 -104 Priority No. 2 1. Laundry room windows have cranks missing. 12 -703 (Windows have no screens and can be opened.) 2. Loose handrails northwest stairway first level and northeast stairway second level. 12 -406 Priority No. 3 1. Green area is weedy and has bare spots. 12 -317 The following items are items that were noted on my September 5, 1978 inspection which were new items found on this inspection and are shown on - the September 11, 1978 compliance order hand delivered - to Mr. Rozman and john. Building No. 3305 1. Northwest stairway door closure for exit door to lower level is inoperable. Gerald G. Splinter -5- September 22, 1978 Building No. 330 1. Stairway fire door on all levels have inoperable door closures. Building No. 3315 1. Exit light inoperable first floor at fire door separation of west corridor near apartment No. 106 and 107. Building No. 3403 1. First floor west corridor exit light near fire wall is inoperable. 2. Northeast lower level exit light near apartment No. 7 has broken lens. Building No. 3409 1. Lower southwest door into corridor has inoperable closure. Handrail down - to lower level is broken. 2. Exit sign broken lower level corridor far wall near apartment No. 5. , 3. Corridor light near apartment No. 102 has missing globe and bulb. 4. Lower level, first, and second floor southwest corridor fire doors have inoperable closures. Building No. 3413 1. Northwest stairway lower level exit door into corridor has inoperable closure and damaged door. Building No. 341 1. Southeast stairway has loose handrail up to second floor. 2. Missing fire extinguisher second floor corridor at southeast exit door near apartment No. 210. Building No. 3421 1 . Southwest entrance door down - to lower level has handrail missing. A Gerald G. Splinter -6- September 22, 1978 It should be noted at the time of 'this inspection that crews were on -the site trimming trees around fences and around - the dwellings, especially at - the entrance -ways where the building addresses are obscured by these trees. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTIRE SITE. 1, Repair or replace all damaged or missing fence sections, and screen walls along west property line and along north property line. 2. Assure all buildings are properly addressed in accordance with Building Code. 3. Repair parking and driving areas, as needed, where deterioration, pot holes, and poor drainage are evident. 4. Inspect, repair, and paint building exteriors as necessary. Items not corrected as of 9 -5 -78 inspection. • BUILDING NO. 3305 PRIORITY 1 1) Northwest exterior entry light is inoperable. (12 -504) 2) Loose electrical outlet in corridor near Apt. #7. (12 -504) PRIORITY 3 1) Green area is weedy and has bare spots. (12 -317) 2) Exterior wood siding on south side of dwelling is loose. (12-702) BUILDING NO..'3307 PRIORITY 1 1) Lower level exit sign at fire wall separation between east and west corridor is broken. (FPC -11.2) 2) Northeast exterior entrance light is inoperable. (12 -504) PRIORITY 2 1) Laundry room window cranks are missing. (12 -709) 2) Southwest entrance handrail to lower level is loose. (12 -406) PRIORITY 3 1) Green area is weedy and has bare spots. (12 -317) 2) Concrete steps at south entrance are spalled. (12 -406) BUILDING NO. 3311 PRIORITY 1 1) Broken wall outlet plate in corridor near Apt. #204. (12 -504) PRIORITY 2 1) Laundry room window cranks are missing. (12 -709) BUILDING NO. 3315 PRIORITY 1 1) Building address is missing numerals on southwest entrance. (3 -104) PRIORITY 2 1) Torn and frayed carpet at northeast (rear) entrance stairs. (12 -704) BUILDING NO. 3403 PRIORITY 1 -� 1) Northeast exterior entrance light is inoperable. (12 -504) 2) Corridor wall outlet 'damaged near Apt. #108. (12 -504) 3) Third level fire doors near Apts. #201 and #208 do not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) 4) Exit lights damaged near Apts. #204,#206 and #208. (FPC 11.2) PRIORITY 2 f 1) Laundry room window cranks are missing. (12 -709) f f 2) Northeast exterior door does not close tightly. (12 -703) 3) Entrance handrail near Apt. #7 is damaged. (12 -406) PRIORITY 3 1) Green area is weedy and has bare spots. (12 -317)" BUILDING NO. 3409 PRIORITY 1 1 Southwest exterior entrance light is damaged. (12 -504) g g PRIORITY 2 1) Laundry room window cranks are missing. (12 -709) PRIORITY 3 1) Siding is missing from west exterior walls. (12 -702) 2) Siding is damaged on east exterior walls. (12 -702) BUILDING NO. 3413 PRIORITY 1 1) Northwest exterior entrance light is damaged. (12 -504) PRIORITY 3 1) Laundry room window screen are missing. (12 -703) 2) Fence section is missing to the west of parking area. (12 -706) 3) Green area is weedy and has bare spots. (12 -317) I , BUILDING NO. 3417 PRIORITY 1 1) Exterior entrance light is inoperable. (12 -,504) BUILDING NO.' 3417 Cont • PRIORITY'2 1) Carpet worn on northeast stairway. (12 -704) 2) Corridor wall is cracked on third level near northwest exit door (12 -704) PRIORITY 3 1) Northeast sidewalk is deteriorated. (12 -708) BUILDING NO 3421 PRIORITY 1 1) Southwest exterior entrance light is damaged. (12 -504) PRIORITY 2 1) Laundry room window cranks are missing. (12 -709) 2) Laundry room floor drain is clogged. (12 -709) 3) Loose handrail at northeast stairway.up to second floor. (12 -406) PRIORITY 3 1) Green area is weedy and uncut.on southwest end of building and north side. (12 -317) BUILDING N0, 3425 PRIORITY 3 1) Green area is weedy and uncut on south side of building. (12 -317) BUILDING NO. 3429 PRIORITY 1 1) Building address numerals are missing on northwest entrance. (3 -104) 2) Northwest exterior entrance light is broken. (12 -504) PRIORITY 2 1) Laundry room window casing is damaged, and window cranks are missing. (12-703, 12-709) 2) Loose handrails, northwest stairway first level, and northeast • stairway second level. (12 -406) PRIORITY 3 1) Green area is weedy and has bare spots. (12 -317) BUILDING NO. ''3'4'33 PRIORITY 3 1) Laundry room radiator is damaged and cover plate is missing. (12-709) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTIRE SITE. 1) Repair or replace all damaged or missing fence sections, and screen walls along west property line and along north property line. 2) Assure all buildings are properly addressed in accordance with Building Code. 3) Repair parking and driving areas, as needed -- -where deterioration, pot holes, and poor drainage is evident. 4) Inspect, repair,and paint building exteriors as necessary. I • a j M£ ;�JRAldDUXt: Ten Apartments • TO City tManager Gerald Splinter F'RO14: Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Inspection DATE: 'March 31, 1978 1. Attached are two copies of the updated compliance orders for Brookdale Ten Apartments, pursuant to the March 28, 1978 inspection. It is my understanding you are going to contact Mr. Rozman regarding completion of the i temns . 2. I recd -mena that another deadline be established for the owner to: a) complete the Priority l items; and b) complete the Priority '2 items. May 1st would be reasonable time. .3. The outside work; including Priority 3 items, could be set for-com- pletion by June 1. This would comprehend the "General Requirements" as we'll. 4. I recommend also that the Rental License which is now expired, be re newed conditionally, to be reviewed on May 8 and again in June. The Ordinance, at Section 12 -905, does not permit renewal unless the rental dwelling and premises conform to applicable state and city laws. pP 3 February 28, 1978 NOTE: FPC means Fire Protection Code • BUILDING NO. 3305 PRIORITY l Exterior entry light inoperable. (12 -504) Third level exit light (near Apts. 204 and 205) missing exit sign. (FPC -11.2) Second level exit light (near Apt. 105) missing exit sign. (FPC -11.2) Lower level light (near Apts. 6 and 7) missing exit sign. (FPC -11.2) Lower level exit light (near Apt. 10) missing exit sign. (FPC -11.2) Lower level fire extinguisher (near Apt. 10) missing. Fire doors near Apts. 1 and 6 do not close and latch properly. (FPC-11.1) Laundry room fire door damaged (12 -704) and does not close and iatch properly. (FPC -11.1) Accumulation of dirt, dust, lint behind washer and dryer. (FPC-1.5) • Loose electrical outlet in corridor near Apt. 7 (12 -504) Corridor fire door (near Apt. _101) does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Corridor fire door (near Apt. 201) does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11 -.1) PRIORITY 2 Vestibule wall, rear lower level damaged (120704) Corridor ceiling by Apt. 3 damaged. (12 -704) PRIORITY 3 Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -317) Exterior wood siding on south side of dwelling is missing. (12 -702) Exterior wall on north side of dwelling has loose and missing siding._ (12 -702) • 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3307 PRIORITY 1 South side lower level exit door self closer broken. (12 -709) Lower level fire door between east and west corridors has broken self closer (12 -709) Lower level exit sign at fire wall separation between east and west corridor is broken. (FPC -11.2) Second level southwest fire door does not close tightly. (FPC -11.1) Exterior entrance light inoperable. (12 -504) Building address incomplete -- number missing. (3 -104) Lower level laundry room fire door near boiler room has no closure. (FPC 11.1) Fire missing near lower level laundry room. Fire extinghisher missing Tower level near Apt. 9. Corridor fire doors do not close and latch properly, near Apts. 101, 104, 201, 208 (FPC 11.1). Third level exit sign near Apt. 208 broken (FPC 11.2) Lower level fire door near Apt. 7 does not close and latch properly. (FPC -11.1) PRIORITY 2 Laundry room window cranks missing. (12 -709) Southwest entrance handrail to lower level is loose. (12 -406) Southwest exterior door does not close tightly. (12 -703) Corridor walls damaged near Apts. 5, 104, 201. (12 -704) PRIORITY 3 Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -317) Concrete steps at north entrance are sealled. (12 -406) 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3311 PRIORITY 1 Building address on north end missing number. (3 -104) Dirt, dust, lint accumulation behind washer and dryer. (FPC -1.5) Laundry room fire door damaged, and does not close and latch properly. (FPC -11.1) Fire door near Apt. 201 does not close and latch properly. (FPC -11.1) Broken wall outlet in corridor near Apt. 204. (12 -504). PRIORITY 2 Laundry room window cranks missing. (12 -709) Corridor walls damaged near Apts. 4, 104. (12 -704) 'i 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3315 • PRIORITY 1 Building address missing numerals. (3 -104) Electrical outlets damaged near Apt. 101. (12 -504) Lower level northeast fire door does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Exterior entrance light inoperable. (12 -504) PRIORITY 2 Torn and frayed carpet at northeast (rear) entrance stiars. (12 -704) • I i I 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3403 Lower level exit light at fire door separation of corridors missing sign. (FPC -11.2) Exterior entrance light inoperable. (12 -504) Laundry room fire door damaged, and does not close and latch properly. (FPC -11.1) Dryer vent pipe damaged (FPC 1.5) Corridor wall outlet damaged near Apt. 108. (12 -504) Second level exit light damaged at fire wall separation near Apt. 105. (FPC -11.2) Second level fire door at fire wall separation does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Third level fire doors near Apts. 201, 208 do not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Exit lights damaged near Apts 204, 206, 208. (FPC 11.2) PRIORITY 2 Laundry room window cranks missing. (12 -709) Northeast exterior door does not close tightly. (12 -703) • Corridor carpet in front of Apt. 104 torn. (12 -704) Carpeting on southwest stairs worn. (12 -704) Corridor walls damaged near Apts. 4, 201. (12 -702) Entrance handrail near Apt. 7 damaged. (12 -406) Corridor carpet damaged at bottom of stairs near Apt. 7. (12 -406) PRIORITY 3 Green areas weedy and uncut. (12 -317) i • 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3409 PRIORITY 1 Laundry room fire door closer missing and door is damaged. (FPC 11.1) Exterior entrance light inoperable. (12 -504) Dryer vent pipe damaged. (FPC 1.5) Third level fire doors near Apts. 201, 210 do not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Lower level exit light near Apt. 9 damaged. (FPC 11.2) PRIORITY 2 Carpeting torn in lower level near 7. (12 -704) Laundry room window cranks missing. (12 -709) First level carpet near Apt. 101 is torn. (12 -704) Boiler room ceiling damaged. (12 -704) Corridor walls damaged near Apts. 4, 204, 206. (12 -704) Carpeting on stairs damaged between second and third level at front entrance. (12 -704) PRIORITY 3 Floor sagging near, Apt. 104. (12 -704) Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -317) Siding missing from east and 'west exterior walls. (12 -702) 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3413 PRIORITY 1 Lower level fire doors (north and south) do not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Exterior entrance light inoperable. (12 -504) Laundry room fire door damaged and does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Second level north end fire door does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Third level south end fire door does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) PRIORITY 2 Laundry room walls damaged. (12 -704) PRIORITY 3 Laundry room window screens missing. (12 -703) Fence section missing to the west of parking area.. (12 -706) Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -317) 2 -28 -78 BUILDING N0. 3417 PRIORITY 1 Lower level exit light at fire door separation inoperable. (FPC 11.2) Second level fire door at southwest end blocked open.(FPC 11.4) Exterior entrance light inoperable. (12504) Lower level north and south fire doors do not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Laundry room fire door damaged. (FPC 11.1) Second level fire door at separation wall does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) PRIORITY 2 Carpet torn on stairs at second level southwest end. (12 -704) Carpet worn on northeast stairway. (12 -704) Corridor wall cracked on third level near rear entry. (12 -704) . PRIORITY 3 Northeast sidewalk deteriorated. (12 -708) 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3421 PRIORITY 1 Fire door at lower level, northeast entrance does not close or latch properly.. (FPC 11.1) • Fire extinguishers missing, lower level, near Apartment #1, and at northeast end. Fire extinguisher missing, second level, north end. Laundry room fire door closer missing. (FPC 11.1) Exterior entrance light inoperable. (12 -504) Lower level, southwest corridor exit sign missing. (FPC 11.2) Fire'extinguisher missing, first level, northwest entrance. PRIORITY 2 Laundry room window ,cranks missing. (12 -709) Laundry room floor drain clogged. (12 -709) • Loose handrail and torn carpet at northwest stairway. (12 -406) PRIORITY 3 Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -317) 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3425 PRIORITY 1 Fire extinguishers missing, second level, near Apt. 101 and 108. Fire extinguisher missing, lower level, at north end; and extinguisher empty at south end. Fire extinghisher missing third level, near Apt. 210`. Exit light missing, lower level at fire separation wall. (FPC 11.2) Lower level fire door at separation wall blocked open. (FPC 11.4) Second level fire doors (north and south ends) blocked open. (FPC 11.4 Trash, dirt accumulation behind washer and dryer. (FPC 1.5) PRIORITY 2 Carpet torn, second level at southwest stairs. (12 -704) PRIORITY 3 Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -317) • 2 -28 -7$ BUILDING NO. 3429 PRIORITY 1 Building address numerals missing. (3 -104) Exterior entrance light inoperative. (12 -504) Fire door closers missing, lower level, including laundry room door. (FPC 11.2) Lower level fire doors blocked open. (FPC 11.4) Dirt, dust, lint accumulation behind dryer. (FPC 1.5) Exit light damaged, lower level corridor. (FPC 11.2) Second level fire doors blocked open. (FPC 11.4) Second level exit light inoperable at fire separation wall. (FPC 11.4) PRIORITY 2 Laundry room window using damaged, and window cranks missing. (12- 703, 12 -709) Loose handrails, northwest stairway first level, and southwest stairway second level. (12 -406) Carpet torn, second level fire separation wall. (12- 704) PRIORITY 3 Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -317) 2 -28 -78 BUILDING NO. 3433 • PRIORITY 1 Building address has missing numerals. (3 -104) Fire extinguisher missing. second level near Apt. 108. Laundry room door damaged, does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Lower level south and north fire doors do not close and latch properly; and south door - threshold missing. (FPC 11.1`) Second level fire door at separation wall does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Third level north end fire door does not close and latch properly. (FPC 11.1) Fire extinguisher missing northeast end,third level P RIORITY 2 Lower level carpet torn near Apts. 5, 6, 7 and at fire wall separation. (12 -704) Second level carpet torn near Apt. 107 and at fire wall separation. (12 -704) • Third level carpet torn at southeast stairway. (12 -704) PRIORITY 3 Laundry room radiator damaged and cover plate missing. (12 -709) Green area weedy and uncut. (12 -.317) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTIRE SITE. Provide rated A -B -C dry chemical fire extinguishers throughout, in addition to or in lieu of existing water or soda -ash extinghishers. (State Regulations) Repair or replace all damaged or missing fence sections, and screen walls along west property line and along north property line. Provide effective approved barrier (fencing, landscaping, signery, etc.) at _53rd Avenue west of house across from Northport Drive intersection, to prohibit vehicles from drivin into complex over grass areas. 9 p g Assure all buildings are properly addressed in accordance with Building Code Repair parking and driving areas, as needed -- where deterioration, pot holes, poor drainage is evident. Inspect, repair and paint building exteriors as necessary. Assure management and maintenance personnel are familiar with Maintenance Ordinance. Miarch 3, 1978 16 . Ben i nzman 407 Dakota . venue ::f lnr3ti: p ?i. z l 111.C:u:f.'.�stJ4 w .► l d , M ar B : This �.e t:t`:' �.� to cca� I; our converse-rion On Tuesday afternoon, F'r'sruary 23, .Ctx con ez.cation covered a number cf it':e'ms regarding. your C oncezr ?` :r ii m e." ode of erIfOMen.elit the City of Brcoklynt Center Is n in�j enrcccing i .s Coda and the rnqa=a7 in which c:onzpl,aints aro 4 from to'e:c.:.Yts. and p Utc nt:iai tenants Of ynUr Lrpol'+dale,, `.i'en apartments. As you l",ad c. �iCri for yc:x CCi:CE2':t and j'oLir CG2In'1.i3ili In thi regard and Tvould fol lcty :�i?�'ouL� ,h ca �:.�1e ? s i a 15 a 1 r :A5 r t Cv 3- �i.? r 1 ca�.°,''L. '�.i .�7. aaiv ' a. x. 4rE POE-S ble t :ere % -as: a bre' zt- 1SK..U'S'm in co.m i:�unicCt`ion In your a:rgant. +atfCF"Y reuarO. g the ix ia tines. 2. %A- 1 1',i.ch w ha :dic our co.mplah t. Ire �'i iron, «tc cliscu&� sed the nuYrd-,er,' itjTe and dagree of a. dinanCle - violati.o ns UM SrL ero aware. of as 01 U:ui irlspe t ionos^ appl°UxAman $'e 1 two to $bxeL3 a go. As y u a rc am sure, taivar�, s you - iay.! X'eCcive'd over tho past riti nbe oi ri 2tbsss b nu4i ")�,t° pf co aT3i.i�. n e crdcr;'i In wMoh certain Vickations and daRclersc.a s "'.1cr ? nested, At our nic -(it Yqq I fiz ndi C`'t t *ov a doc— .ii'i3fsrlt '' �g i y l f W i� i?iti�.4.i�. U �. �...,:�,�;.� rat' "ta i3roo -)a y en ti: 42X pir.Y enuatcraUed the vc'.r. -ou items vihich , in our opinion vFr '.cdR.a oir crdinanoss a, '`13Culd. be repairc 1. li %l 3 ;7n'io these Items Into ''`.hrc— i I. £1l:'.ci i.a u, ['.ild S\+: va t �%'t.�.+ rs' i�;" r r�. 4iof1 N 'U`�l Lt?C"..i ^i::>: U b7 1,1 rch 23 IUD Ou Wculd ht qa a ll of the Pricvrit/ 1 on all. as fsT'ai 3. A'a th i::it I 'hnA , c_ to you a nd the list at'Unched I. t this � l a ct.eY.°, � S x . also 117 ii^::�:an Oil Vac - _s 2 t cxe et tilis w� 72 + ✓,. d0r_u. S e,, s be �'rep<:ii'r„•'•� f or t.ii:� City Attorney's cfi'iCa a hIC -i1 tA't'?1ud he teak -Inn th s e violations - to court frt p t; <' C;; EtU;1. In our t'oriVF rcation with re ore, to this, You IndIcatcd y our wlllh'1gI esE 3 to 'c".`a:e us to C.Ot rc "..d iigint It 'n cc`UT- Vv% both rued this would not solve our mwtual prop' , !,ari but: zr+.aW�' *"MrC Was so.ine Y ty N e could '%vork thing- out. The result: of vtiis v s you promise to me to cc ,Iple4v UP. Priority Z steins by Tlarcn 23 1973 n.t iial ic1h amass, r a bly izi the air. t-:lc :,4 q Y ;? c i y, pare will Inspect: the prcm:.scs %vith com plir:nce With b':iv-it_v x it -c ,. Because of this discus ior. I iz icated to Vcu t1he City z'ou.l nol Ccimmence 1 ac "�.��Y �`,7C�11:.Ci 0 you e t opportunity to i - Ak.e cere ci tile- c~ Si i items & t h en after co mpleting :that, we wi ll work out 3 sirr.11ay Ec.hedui£a An ixioslty %nd 3 ftcros. Mr. Ben Rozman -2- March 3, 1978 I appreciated the time you took and the opportunity you gave me - to sit down with you and discuss our mu tual problems and concerns. During our conversations you Indicated on several occasions your reluctance and aggrevation at being "dicta.ted to ". I can appreciate your personal philosophy regarding this matter. However, I hope you appreciate and understand it is - the responsibility of - this office to enforce ordinances and codes of the City, which include - the Housing Code, and to seek compliance therewith. If we can attain compliance with these codes with_ � out going to court, 1 believe it is in our mutual interest to work things out. However, piease understand if our inspection on March 23, 1978 finds': Priority 1 Items not in repair, we will immediately commence court action. I am sure I can court on your cooperation in this matter and look forward to our meeting on March 23, 1978. Thanking you for your kind attention and cooperation. I am, Sincerely, A / I erald. Splinter i Manager C ty CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER .GGS:dkw cc: Richard Schieffer, City Attorney j.. -Zlair Tremere, Director of Planning & Inspection 'I � C . t i M & C No. 78 -29 1 September 22, 1978 . { FROM THE OFFICE / OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Addendum: Special Budget Meeting To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: At the Special Budget Meeting of September 13, 1978 questions were raised on certain budget items. The following brief explanations address those questions. FIRE PROTECTION BUDGET: AERIAL PUMPER LADDER The following items identify the advantages of an aerial pumper ladder - truck in more detail. 1. Arrival - time using Mutual Aid has varied from 15 minutes - to 23 minutes based on Brooklyn Center's 4 requests for Mutual Aid. This arrival time should be evaluated against the fact that the magnitude of a fire can potentially increase 3 times in 2 minutes, 11 - times in 4 minutes, and 50 times in 6 minutes. If a Mutual Aid department is using - the piece of equipment in their own city, it cannot be used by Brooklyn Center. 2. The concept of Mutual Aid is contingent on reciprocity. An aerial pumper ladder complements 'the equipment in the area, whereas, an aerial bucket duplicate s . 3. An aerial pumper ladder (telescoping aerial ladder with pre -piped deluge) has been in existence longer than other types of aerial equipment and consequently more of - the problem areas have been worked out. Due to the fact that the aerial pumper ladder is lighter equipment, there are generally fewer mechanical problems. 4. Aerial equipment would give us the capability - to quickly get fire personnel on the roof 'to vent - the fire and prevent the spread and get - the fire personnel back down. This must be evaluated in relationship to the fact that numerous older apartment buildings do not have a sprinkler system, thus necessitating an effort totally reliant on venting - the fire through the roof. In the recent past, aerial equipment could have been used in fires at: Twin Lake North apartments, Earle Brown Farm (3 •times) , old City Hall, Slaughter House. 5. An involved fire in •the following locations would predictably be almost impossible to confine without aerial equipment. Willow Lane Apts . Northbrook Earle Brown Apts . 65th and Chowen Apts . The Beach Chippewa Evergreen Brookda le Gardens Marvin Gardens Georgetown Wingard Lane Twin Lake North Humboldt Towers Lynbrook Bowl Howe Fertilizer Standard Solvents M & C No. 78 -29 -2- September 22, 1978 6. A cost benefit analysis is difficult but fire losses have -the following overall effect in addition to loss of life and property: a. increased insurance rates b loss of - taxes - to city c. loss of jobs EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BUDGET (CIVIL DEFENSE) The Civil Defense Department within - the City of Brooklyn Center has changed both in name and direction over `the years. The department is currently called Office of Emergency Preparedness and is responsible for emergency preparedness planning and implementation, when necessary, for bo•th_natural and man -made disasters. The thrust of a has caused concern over Civil Defense has changed and that chap fih C g g the current effectiveness. In actuality, - the scope of Civil Defense has been broadened and - the operation modified in such a manner as to render it more effective. Formerly - the emphasis of Civil Defense was almost , totally in preparation for a nuclear disaster. The program at that time was highly visible with the building and stocking of bomb shelters. Shelter team$ comprised of local citizenry, were recruited and involved in - the program. In contrast, today's Civil Defense (Emergency Pre • paredness) program .emphasizes preparation for both natural and nuclear disasters. Through its evolution Civil Defense has found it can be more effective through the utilization of departments already in existence within the City. City personnel can quickly make the transition 'to cope with disaster situations because - the majority of operating mechanisms are already set up. In the past - the program was centered on Civil Defense volunteers. Presently Civil Defense operates primarily 'through City staff, performing dual functions. Volunteers are called into service, when necessary, City's , •to work with City staff. The Ci 's emergency plans have been prepared to reflect - this mode of operation. This - type of planning is not visible - to - the public and, therefore, the public may feel nothing is being done. Any citizen with concern about lack of Civil Defense pre- paration is invited to call 'the Civil Defense Coordinator, Chief Jim Lindsay, and come in to discuss what is being done. Certain more visible programs are also sponsored by Civil Defense currently. Cardio- pulmonary resuscitation classes, first aid classes, and - tornado emergency planning for businesses, schools and private citizens is available and utilized by many. The City has a warning system of sirens which warns people of disaster. The City made available sandbags for use by citizens during - the heavy rains. Many of -these pro- grams may not be attributed - to Civil Defense, again causing confusion over the effectiveness of Civil Defense. M & C No. 78 -29 -3- September 22, 1978 DETACHED WORKER PROGRAM BUDGET When the Detached Worker program was conceived and initiated, -the program was intended -to be a street operation, detached from an organized program and from an institutional setting. The police needed trained people - to work with juveniles in their environment. it is nearly impossible for - the police to function in this manner -and it was hoped the Detached Worker could provide this link. There is no doubt - the Detached Workers have had successes in working with juveniles - to - the benefit of the community. However, over the years 'the Detached Worker program has changed in scope and operation, not necessarily by police direction. The Detached Workers still attempt - to make street contacts but a great deal of their work is generated through institutions such as the schools. Certain juvenile problem areas such as Grandview Park, in which police can't use normal investiga- tive approaches, have not been dealt with successfully by the Detached Workers either. Although the original intent of the program was - to work with juveniles on the street, 'the program appears 'to function more through structured settings (schools, agenices) . If the CETA funding for Detached Workers is terminated and if the Council looks -to regular City funds - to support - this program, - the following considerations must be weighed; 1. The police have referred 16 juveniles to the Detached Workers since January 1, 1978. Some have been dealt with successfully. The Detached Workers have not been able (through street contacts) 'to deal successfully with certain juvenile problem areas. 2. The incidence of 16 referrals in approximately 9 months would not justify carrying 2 Detached Workers as part of - the regular police budget. 3. It might be more reasonable to look to other sources (schools, United Fund) for funding for - the Detached Workers if CETA is - terminated. We do not question - the value of the program; we do question - the justification for total City funding of - the program. LEGAL COUNSEL BUDGET i Attached - to this memo you will find a letter to the City Manager from Schieffer and Carson, Ltd., an analysis of legal costs in - the City of Brooklyn Center and a comparison of legal costs in other suburban municipalities E M & C No. 78 -29 -4- September 22, 1978 Additionally, the Council asked for a reaction from the police department regarding the effectiveness of prosecution in -the City. Our review indicates the existence of an excellent working relationship between the City Prosecutor, Bill Clelland, and - the police department. The police administration reports - the officers have confidence in the Prosecutor and feel he works with them. The officers consider the Prosecutor an ally and are willing `to work hard with him. As a result of - the work generated in this positive climate, - the court has a good impression of arrests and charges made by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. The City has received complimentary letters from judges stating such. All of this, coupled with - the legal skills of the Prosecutor, have made the Prosecutor highly effective for the City. Additionally, the City Prosecutor has instituted a practice of asking - the judge - to levy an appropriate fine against •the offender even if the case is plea bargained. The City Prosecutor has been more heavily involved in the preparation of ordinances which will predictably affect criminal prosecution. Both of these practices have had a positive effect on 'the City. Re a tful submitted, Gerald G. Splinter City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GGS:dkw Comparison of Legal Costs All of the communities providing information to us contract for legal counsel on a per hour basis, a retainer basis or a combination of the two, except for the City of Coon Rapids which employs in -house a City Attorney and an Assistant City Attorney. The figures quoted include the cost of prosecution, council related activities and certain civil matters. The figures do not include the cost of legal counsel for special cases 1979 Municipality Proposed 1978 Brooklyn Park 21,996 20,352 Robbinsdale 35,000 44,500 New Hope 37,500 38,500 Roseville 43 Crystal 44,600 42,000 Fridley 52,000 47,274 Edina 54,300 56,000 Coon Rapids 57,000 52,300 Plymouth 82,178 St. Louis Park 97,000 plus * _ 23,000 budgeted for additional special cases *did not respond with 1978 figures. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ANALYSIS OF LEGAL COSTS 1977/1978 1977 1978 (12 MONTHS) (8 MONTHS'- THROUGH AUGUST) AMOUN PERCENT AMOUN PERCEN FEES PAID TO CITY ATTORNEY OF COUNSEL, (Council- Meetings, Agenda Review, Conferences,, _. Correspondence, Office Work and Public Inquiries in Con- nection with the Administration of Legal Affairs) $ 6,000 13.6% $ 4,000 11.6% CIVIL MATTERS $11,483 26.0% $12' 335 35.90 CRIMINAL MATTERS Complaints $ 4,738 10.8% $ 4,001 11.7% Pre- Trials 4,482 10.2 2,873 8.4 Bench. Trials 6,626 ' 15.0 4,062 11.8 • Jury Trials 8,649 19.6 5,913 17.2 Miscellaneous" Criminal 2,129 4.8 1,171 3.4 Total Criminal Matters. $26,624 60.4% $18',020 52.5% TOTAL FEES PAID CITY ATTORNEY $44,107 100.0% $34,355 10 OTHER FEES AND EXPENSES OUTSIDE COUNSEL FEES $ 1,010 • $ 776 LAW LIBRARY MAINTENANCE $ 1,021 $ 407 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $ 197 $ -0- TOTAL OTHER FEES AND EXPENSES $ 2 $ 1_ 183 t k TOTAL LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES $46,335 $35,538 t C I Y O �_ tS k O O K t.`J�1 CE �► f E 4 , . ,,; . �._,-...� __�..:;- .,..,.. _. _ _. _. ,..._ -- nAL-YS,S FEES 1 7o -� — -- ,a 9 r 1z _ H r M o.r rH S Sub - r o r-4 � -iI cew r l �q,_I FE8 MAR. AP+� M4y S.I�J SuL AvIS pou.A4S �E - o i .6y 70 z OF CovnISEL C ,(6tA,N t 6000! 0000l O od op ao 000o co o ,500 0 3 -- - - 4 4h AsYe,cs 5Lr_� 7J�o rookl J� u ool / Y 3 fi C e A P s - itJ c , � t.: 1 I Yi6 G7 33 90 00 1 So y oloo l L150 00 I b(o 33 7499 j ;j oo / 5b o 'obo 3i J 6$ rpl�' S 00 i 0o�00 333 o_3j l• J 1 �� 0 00! yb �5' _' G I I 1 ' I I H4 10 _ —S sX.a al—Ac-fl y i) _� 1z f,411Flt. ±�� .' prd:'r i b { 516yi67 - 1 I ol+ b of o�oo 1 J 33 5333 15a� ©rtl+n *Al� O 1 00 00 ! i 16 - 1�abor_ ' 33 I 33 ; y b3oSb I i .7 4 -1 - 11 �., /a j.ea ve ?a r. t. f' S I 7ga� N 3' y Y _' � i _Y6�6 LtSoo 1 __.SoJ� I - � 33 X46 ! 18000 9 20 _ C -2 C5! try 21 Ont� F ortCSU roV - O O I x000 �- t 22 d4 i it 4147 I V. 6 6, 3 33 i 23 - - - -SFr 4 T '^c c $t ► t �_ i r 3 33 i 3333 24 2s lj 43333 t . bo�� I I S3 3b iT of 3 26 I 8g + A-4 , o - l__M�3tcl 1, 29 -- -- -... Tot=/ C j d - a 3� c" s 5�� _ 7 .$a d /5' G /S - Yg I '/5 o 96.6s l l ��' / /x'335 y 3S•9l 7 30 A 4_ . ATt�,S - _ 93 66033 lyo S8000' 31 + 6 i 0000' o o' y9 `�001� I 32. r r_Ia,1S i O . '.. . Co�.� lz.�t s �, � I � � 33 � t , I � -� Y33 � � ' 33 �� I 000 so 00 al000i o o �o�oo! i _ o _ ob 133 $'• 3b 4 _ _T t �O9 cog 0dl $D o� L'3�3! c �_� 1_ 8 r t 33 tnorl Tr 1 �. _ rr.. 1 s.; Ire4 � / 8 : I 34 — - - 4o4s 1 i3 /3 1 /. •mil 35 73 r4 • $ Is I i 1 d000' aS F SO 7 o O �I � b66 _- it+�i'.S lliacews,l , � 36 I.0 bl j7 lip To 36 i (� I L 37 - -- - 1 o g a: 0a o'36 % I a o6 t,5 3 8 I$ 5 ,ys / In j- !h / 7 44 3t / 8 i 39 r prs furl , 40 I' I I li TeTA� Pay ntEni7'S- 399`K9at a �► - 7+3 o N'8a` 3y,35Sy5 /oo; © �t i i I (4)w'Lscy.�O�J�1{v�t�'�a�`�C�d0 �0 �N� s 13 SCBIEFFER AND CARSON, LTD. 610 BROCKDALE TOWERS 57TS+ AVENUE NORTH AT BR60KDALE CENTER RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER MINN EAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS4$.0. _ � TELEPHONE JEFFREY A. CARSON (612) 561 -3200 WILLIAM G. CLELLANO q p GREGORY M. BISTRAM.. August 30, .1970 Jerry Splinter City .Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: LEGAL BUDGET FOR 197 Dear fir. Splinter: I have reviewed our legal fees budget for Brooklyn Center and I find that during the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 we have been billing the City at a rate of $40 per hour for -non- retainer work. As you know, during those years the rate of inflation has been in the neighborhood of 10 per year. These inflationary increases have been reflected in our overhead expenses in various ways, the bottom line being•that we are all working more hours to maintain the status quo. It is necessary, therefore, to make an adjustment in our rates to compensate for inflation. • Another cost factor is the addition of non - lawyer personnel, which we have added to our office staff in order to increase productivity. Particularly with respect to criminal matters, the use of a legal assis- tant has become necessary in order to increase lawyer productivity. The.addition of legal assistants to our staff increases the overhead without a compensating increase in income since we do not charge for the work done.by legal assistants. In order to provide high quality legal services at a cost which is fair and equitable to Brooklyn Center and all of our clients, we will be adopting a variable fee schedule dependiizg upon the experience of the attorney providing the services. This fee schedule will be as follows: 1. For attorneys who have been admitted to the practice of law for ten years or more, the rate will be $50 per hour. 2. For attorneys in their third year through - • their ninth year of admission to the bar, the rate will be $45 per hour. 3. For attorneys who have been admitted through and including two years, the rate will be $40.00 per hour. 4. We will continue the practice of making no additional charge for the services of legal assistants, for work which is done by them in support of projects upon -which an attorney is working. If you have a special project which you wish to assign to our office, which can be done by.a legal assistant,.the rate would be $20 per hour. We have looked at the retainer fee and, although the hours - expended by lawyers in our office on retainer services appear to run between 20 and 30 hours per.month, we do not find it necessary to make an adjustment in the retainer fee. The last time the hourly rate was calculated, in 1975 effective 1976, we calculated 300 hours annually under the retainer at $20 per.hour for a total of $6,000, and 975 hours annually at a billing rate of $40 per hour for a total of $39,000, and a total budget of $45,000.. We will continue to supply approximately 300 hours'of service under the retainer for $6,000 annually. Looking at the internal breakdown, it appears that Mr. Clelland puts in about 557o of the non retainer hours and I put in about 45 %. At the new billing rate, if the 975 non - retainer hours are split in-that fashion, we will deliver 975 hours of services for $46,068.75. The total cost, therefore, of 1275 hours of legal services would be $52,068.75, for an average billing rate of $40.84 per hour. Assuming that no increase in the number of hours for legal services is desired, this would mean an increase in the legal budget of ` about 13.5`x. A memo describing the members of the firm is enclosed in case you are interested. Sincerely, SCHIEFFER AND CARSON, LTD. i I Richard J. Schieffer RJS / j h E:zclosure SCHIII&FFER AND CAiRsoiv, LTD" 610 BROOKDALE TOWERS - ` 57Th AVENUE NORTH A' BROOKOALECENTER RIC -NARO. J. SCHIE MINNEAPOLIS,- MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE JEFFREY A. CARSON - . ". (612) 56t -320A' . WILLIAM G. CL£LLANO G fiEGORY M. SISTRAM Schieffer and Carson, Ltd. is a professional corporation with an A rating for competence and a V rating (Very Highly Recommended) rating for referral work. The rating service is Martindale-Hubbell an Internationai Rating Service for attorneys. Attorneys are rated in Martindale- Hubbell - based "upon" opinions solicited from lawyers and judges and these ratings are available to the general public. Each of the attorneys in the firm „has the highest rating available based upon tho number of years of practice.. Approximately 757o of the firm's work is done in the area of municipal law.. The firm or a lawyer in the firm, acts as general counsel to the following cities: Brooklyn Center, Corcoran, Greenfield, Hassan Township, Independence, Medina, Maple, Plain and Spring Lake Park. The legal work in the smaller cities is on an "as needed” basis and regular attendance at council meetings is not required. Mr. Schieffer and Mr. Carson handle the bulk of the municipal civil matters, although Mr. Bistram has been working -on general municipal civil matters since joining the firm in 1977. Mr. Clelland handles such civil matters as labor relations ersonnel matters, labor rie p tte - a g v ances, administrative - procedures, and other selected municipal projects such as hazardous building condemnations and land title g problems. p The criminal work (prosecutions) is handled principally by Mr. Clelland with assistance from Mr. Carson and Mr. Bistram. The schedulin g of , prosecution matters in court, the obtaining of reports, gathering evidence, certifications, etc. and the scheduling of witnesses for prosecutions are handled by Anita Honnette' and Marilyn Hall, legal assistants. The members of the firm are as follows Ricliard J. Schieffe born in Crofton, Nebraska, March 29, 1936; admitted to practice in Minnesota in 1966, City Attorney: Brooklyn Center - 1967 to date: Columbus Township'- 1970 - 1973; Corcoran - 1972 - 1976; Maple Plain - 1972 to dater liedina - 1972 to date; Hassan Township - 1977 to date; Independence 1975 to date; member of various Bar Associations; member,- Local Government 'Law ,Section and National Municipal Attorneys Association, Zoning Committee; President, Hennepin County.Municipal Prosecutors Association. Jeffrey A. Carson born in Hyannis, Mass., September 3, 1945, admitted to practice in Minnesota in 1972, City Attorney, Columbus Township 1974 1975; Spring Lake Park - 1975 to date, Corcoran 1977 to date; Greenfield 1977 to date, member various "Bar Associations, Local Government Law Section and Hennepin County hunieipu" Prosecutors Association. William G..Clelland born in St. Paul, Ifinnesota, November 7, 1947; admitted to practice in Minnesota in -1975; Assistant for Labor Relations 40-o the City Coordinator, City of Minneapolis, 1973 through 1975. Prosecutor for Brooklyn Center and various other municipalities, 1975 to date. Gregory M. Bistra born in Minneapolis,. Minnesota, January 22, 1951; admitted to practice in Minnesota in 1977; Metro Council of Kansas City, Missouri, 1976 and 1977. Prosecutor for various West Hennepin Municipalities, 1977 to date; member'of the Hennepin County and Minnesota Bar Associations. R. J. S. Dated: September 1 1:978 p , tjh Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 25, 1978 /l CIGARETTE LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Q .0 �d�/��/L City Clerk t GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE ' n Pyramid Petroleum Corp. 2605 County Road 10 City Clerk ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Knights of Columbus Auxillary 5307 Winchester Lane / (St. Alphonsus Flea Market) Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Del Air Conditioning, Inc. 9860 James Circle Key Plumbing & Heating 9636 - 85th Ave. No. - 6u 1ding Inspector NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Frito Lay Company 9237 Penn Ave. So. JEM Bowl, Inc, 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Sanitarian A&PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Sanitarian, RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Rich M. Childers 6806 Regent Ave No `��/ Lucille M. Irwin 5400,02 Russell Ave. No. .f n Renewal: Lloyd J. Waldusky Georgetown Park Gale W. Pierce 5960 Brooklyn Blvd. `,) Keith L. Nordby 5964 Brooklyn Blvd. 11 W t n,1 , Don R. McGillivray 5740 Dupont Ave. No. , 1 . Z Michael & Elizabeth Keiffer 5456 Emerson Ave. No. Gary D. Anakka la 5412 - 1/2 Fremont No t - ^ /� Donald L. Jensen 5547 Lyndale Ave. No. Kenneth W. Kunz 5601 Lyndale Ave. No. ` V Ll.It Robert M. Zappa 7206,12 West River Rd. /I ` a -�� ?� Kenneth E. Patterson 3614,16 - 50th Ave. No, 1J't 4� Gary & Vickie Sodahl 610 - 53rd Ave. No. Lt t-u-Ai J _ IW Jack & Elizabeth Fahrenholz 620 - 53rd Ave. No. License Sheet -2- September 25, 1978 Transfer: Richard Weicht 5301 Dupont Ave. No. I. a . Dennis Tollef son 5328,30 Queen Ave. No. A j ,L-) Eugene O. Klawitter 6725 West Fiver Road X LI L C?1L -` Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Cragg, Inc. 9636 - 85th Ave. No.� Building Inspector1t�