Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 03-14 CCP Regular Session Public Copy AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 14, 2005 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 3. Miscellaneous 4. Adjourn i I 4 i A114M A y�►- t w Y 6 Monday March 14th is a very important evening for people who live n ear the intersection of Bass Lake Road and•Brooklyn Boulevard. E y Each day 38,000 cars that go through this intersection. The traffic i volume is expected to get much worse if CV S s megastore s bull on this corner. If you think it's difficult to get out onto Bass Lake Road now, it's about to get much worse. his comin Monday, March 14' the city council will vote on On t g small lot at the corner of the high traffic oversized store on a very Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Blvd. If you are concerned about this store and the traffic it will create, P lease attend the meeting: 7:00 p.m Monday March 14, 2005 Brooklyn Center City Council Meeting Brooklyn Center City Hall Council Chambers, 2 Floor 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 763- 569 -3300 City Hall a fi u u rb a--t- �p - ec� !� Al CoU.y.�•l Can �,� AeJ CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center March 14, 2005 AGENDA 1. Informal Open Forum With City Council 6:45 p.m. provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation 7 p.m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. 4. Roll Call 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Council Report 7. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. February 14, 2005 Work Session 2. February 28, 2005 Study Session 3. February 28, 2005 Regular Session 4. February 28, 2005 Work Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, Lions Park South Area Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 14, 2005 d. Resolution Deferring Scheduled Solicitation of Requests for Proposals on Prosecution Services e. Resolution Receiving and Accepting Summary of Key Observations and Conclusions as Prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr. 8. Public Hearing Items a. Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs, Delinquent Weed Removal Costs, and Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts 1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls 2. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls 3. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls -Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt resolutions. b. Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements 1. Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Development of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt resolution. 2. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 14, 2005 C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Corner of 71st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard) —This item was first read on November 8, 2004; published in the City's official newspaper on November 18, 2004; and a Public Hearing was held on December 13, 2004, at which time it was continued and the ordinance tabled until the final plat has been recorded. Requested Council Action: Motion to re -open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. d. An Ordinance Vacating Certain Drainage and Utility Easements Within Lang Addition, Replat of Block 2 Lang Addition and Center Brook Addition —This item was first read on December 13, 2004; published in the City's official newspaper on December 23, 2004; a Public Hearing was held on January 24, 2005, at which time it was continued and the ordinance tabled until the final plat has been recorded. Requested Council Action: Motion to re -open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. 9. Planning Commission Item a. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 Submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC. Request for Rezoning from R -1 and C -1 to PUD /C -2 and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy on a proposed 1.53 acre site located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its February 17, 2005, meeting. This item was tabled from February 28, 2005, City Council meeting. 1. Presentation on Zoning Change Adoption Rules -Requested Council Action: None, presentation only. 2. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 Submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC *Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4- March 14, 2005 3. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Northwest Corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard) Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading of ordinance, which sets second reading and Public Hearing for April 11, 2005. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution in Support of Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board's Legislative Initiative to Create a Viable Solution for Electronic Waste Requested Council Action: —Phil Eckhert of Hennepin County will be present to address Council. Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Requesting DNR to Conduct Fish Sampling on Twin Lake to Complement the Recent Water and Sediment Quality Testing Released by MPCA Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. C. Request of Watershed Commissions for Comment on Proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy -Requested Council Action: Discuss and provide direction on response to Watershed Commissions. d. Set Date and Time for City Council Retreat *Requested Council Action: Motion to amend the 2005 City Council meeting schedule to set the date and time for the Council Facilitated Retreat for Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 2 p.m. at Earle Brown Heritage Center e. Resolution to Receive Petition for Street and Storm Drainage Improvements along 48th Avenue North From Drew Avenue North to Lilac Drive North -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 11. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a 1 Office of the City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Man ger FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: March 3, 2005 SUBJECT: Requested Changes to Minutes Attached are changes to the minutes of the 02/14/05 Work Session as requested by Councilmember Niesen. The added language is highlighted. Attachments 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council Economic Development Authority met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor President Myrna Kragness at 9:42 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Executive Director Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. HMONG AMERICA SHOPPING CENTER Dan Van representing the Hmon America Shopping Center, addressed the Economic g, p g g Pp g Development Authority (EDA) and said that Mr. Lee, owner of the Hmong- America Shopping Center, was also in attendance at this meeting. He said they are interested in redeveloping the Hmong- America Shopping Center site, noting that they had previously brought before the EDA the Little Asia concept, but the site was too small; and in an attempt to move the Little Asia concept onto an alternative site, the alternative site was too large. He said that they had been working with DJR Architecture Inc., Crockett Associates Inc., Gordy Jensen, and Maxfield Research Inc. on making this a viable redevelopment. He said he was here this evening to present a redevelopment concept to the EDA and looking for direction and guidance from the EDA. Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture Inc., addressed the EDA and outlined the redevelopment proposal for the Hmong America Shopping Center site. He displayed a schematic of the proposed redevelopment which showed a combination of condominiums, townhomes, and retail with a detention pond in the middle of the proj ect located underneath the overhead power lines. He said the redevelopment includes 122 condominiums (one three -story building and one four -story building) and 56 townhomes. 5,000 sq. ft. of retail is planned for the corner of the three -story condominium. He reviewed the concepts and components of the site, including building materials. He explained that the retail space is attached to the condominium which transitions well to the residential area. He said the retail area would be leased by stores such as coffee shops and neighborhood convenience shops. 02/14/05 -1- DRAFT Mary Bujold, Maxfield Research Inc., addressed the EDA and said that Maxfield had prepared a market study for this project. She said the condominium prices would run $150,000 to $230,000 each. The townhomes would run $200,000 to $255,000 each. She further stated that the market study shows there is demand for owner occupied housing. She said that it was recommended the condominium portion be phased, building the smaller condominium first and then phasing in the second condominium with the townhomes starting construction at the same time. She explained the target market for the condominiums is not only older adults and empty nesters but also younger people just starting out. The target market for the townhomes is married couples with one child or single persons. She said there is a diversity of people attracted to this type of housing. Commissioner Lasman inquired about the request for City funding in the amount of $7,975,000. Gordy Jensen, Jensen Sondrall, said he is working with the numbers and there are no final costs yet. He explained- that this evening they are looking to .the EDA for reaction to this concept and whether or not it is an acceptable development. Commissioner O'Connor said she believes it is too expensive for the citizens. Mayor Kragness said that the Maxfield report indicates there is a need for this type of housing and that people do want it. She discussed the 53rd Avenue Project and how there was doubt that those homes would sell at the market rate, but the homes did sell quite quickly. Commissioner Niesen inquired if the drawings that they were reviewing were done specifically for the Hmong- America Shopping Center site. There was also discussion regarding the level of noise from the freeway. Mr. Dovolis responded that the drawings were designed for the site and were a transition between the freeway and housing, balancing in the parking area and green space. He reviewed the geometrics of the site for mitigation of noise from the freeway wall and showed how the placement of buildings allow the noise to flow through. He also discussed that the quality of insulation and type of windows would factor into noise mitigation. He further discussed that this site lends itself to housing as it is orphaned retail property that has been divorced from other retail by T.H. 100. Commissioner Niesen stated that the buildings as presented were attractive and well thought out; and also, that the EDA has discussed retail there. There was discussion regarding the cost of this redevelopment and the need for City financing. Mr. Jensen said that financial numbers can be put together based upon the design and features. Mayor Kragness.noted that the land and clean up is quite costly and there is an additional request for public assistance from the City. 02/14/05 -2- DRAFT Council discussed the density of the housing project and expressed concern that the four -story building was too high and the project possibly too dense. Mr. Dovolis discussed the density and said that it is mid -range with 21 units per acre. He said the density is right for the geometry of the site. Mr. Jensen said he would work on putting a proposal together. He further explained that they could evaluate the plan and reduce the density to finalize the numbers under one or two scenarios. He also stated that they may challenge the eminent domain action to preserve their rights. Commissioner Carmody suggested that there needed to be a deadline for proposals. The EDA agreed that a deadline was needed for this proposal to be brought back, and it was decided the end of May would be the deadline. Developers asked the EDA for their reaction to their design proposal, and the EDA noted support to hear more on the design. Mr. Jensen and Mr. Dovolis said that the end of May would work for them to put together their plans and financing requests. COUNCIL MEMBER LASMAN: COMMUNITY CENTER MEMBERSHIPS Councilmember Lasman said that this item relates to the letter that was discussed last year regarding Gay Lesbian memberships at the Community Center. It was Council consensus to defer this item to the next City Council Work Session. DATE OF FALL CITY COUNCIL RETREAT DISCUSSION There was brief discussion regarding the date of the fall City Council retreat, with mention of September being considered for the retreat. It was Council consensus that this item be deferred to the next Work Session. DISCUSSION OF PROSECUTION SERVICES SCHEDULE OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS This item was deferred to a future City Council Work Session. INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON CLEANUP DAYS IN BROOKLYN PARK, CRYSTAL, AND NEW HOPE Councilmember Lasman said she had talked with several residents after the last cleanup and they had expressed that they do not want to do this type of clean up again if it would cost extra money. She said if there was a one -time charge to those residents who use it, then she may be willing to look at a 02/14/05 -3- DRAFT r e cleanup day. Mr. McCauley said he provided this information to the City Council to apprise them that the surrounding cities would be having cleanup day and Council may receive inquiries from constituents. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Development elo Commissioner Carmody to adjourn the City Coun cil Economic p went Work Session at 10:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor I 02/14/05 -4- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Diane Niesen. Councilmember Mary O'Connor was absent and unexcused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. Councilmember Mary O'Connor arrived at 6:10 p.m. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Lasman discussed Item No. 9b regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 with regard to the Planning Commission information sheet indicating that an 8 -foot fence would divide the residential property from the commercial property and whether or not that met the City Code, as she thought it was 6 feet. City Manager Michael McCauley responded that he would check with the Community Development Director. Mayor Kragness further discussed Item No. 9b regarding CVS Pharmacy applying for both lots and inquired if the dental clinic owned its lot. Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom responded that CVS is taking the lead on the plat, however both owners would need to sign the final plat. The dental clinic would retain the northern lot and CVS Pharmacy would retain the southern lot. Councilmember Lasman raised the question of whether or not the homeowners of the five residential lots were amenable to the purchase agreements. Mr. McCauley responded that it is a private development and CVS has indicated that is has secured purchase agreements with the properties. Councilmember Carmody discussed Item No. 8b and inquired if the CDBG Program is being eliminated. Mr. McCauley responded that under the President's proposal, the potential is thereto eliminate the program. 02/28/05 1- DRAFT I Councilmember arrived at 6:10 p.m. t Councilmember Niesen discussed Item No. 8b regarding the CDBG Program with regard to the allocation of money and raised the question of whether the City can allocate the money anyway it chooses. Mr. McCauley responded that it is Federal money, and there are guidelines and conditions with its use that the City must adhere. Councilmember Niesen discussed the loan amount and asked how it is handled if the homeowner moves before the 15 years to satisfy the loan. Mr. McCauley responded that the homeowner would have to repay a portion of the loan if he /she were to move prior to the satisfaction of the 15 -year loan. He further stated that the money would go back to Hennepin County and would stay in the CDBG Program. There was discussion regarding the CDBG Home Rehabilitation Program and the types of repair done on homes to make the housing safe and sanitary. Assistant City Manager/ Director of Operations Curt Boganey explained that the money that Hennepin County receives is not the City's money, but it is Federal funds that the County has agreed to distribute to Cities if those individual Cities choose to become direct recipients. Mr. Hoffman further explained that the County provided the City with an allocation, as opposed to the City competing annually for State funding. Mr. Boganey followed up and said that once the City becomes part of the program, it has to follow the rules and requirements, and he further stated that 15% is the maximum amount that can be spent on service provision such as H.O.M.E. Councilmember Niesen discussed the February 14, 2005, Work Session minutes and explained that she didn't believe the minutes captured what she thought happened and they were biased and negative with no positive comments. She further explained that she wants balance in the minutes, and there didn't seem to be closure to the discussion of the Hmong America Shopping Center. There was discussion regarding the content of the Work Session minutes, and it was suggested that the minutes be tabled and Councilmember Niesen draft language to be included in the minutes. Councilmember O'Connor requested that Item No. 7c be removed from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Items. Mr. McCauley suggested that it be moved to Consideration Item No. I Oc and then renumber the remaining items. Councilmember O'Connor discussed Item No.8b regarding CDBG funding and raised the question of low- and very low income people and inquired how Hennepin County knows that this criteria is met. Mr. McCauley responded that Hennepin County administers the program and reviews the income guideline forms that are required to be filled out by the applicant. Councilmember O'Connor discussed Item No. 8a regarding the Lions Park South Neighborhood Improvement Project and raised the question of whether the homeowners could have more time to pay back the assessment. Mr. McCauley responded that the City Council sets the Special 02/28/05 -2- DRAFT Assessment Policy, and the Council could change the policy with regard to the number of years to pay the assessment but could not change the length of interest free repayment. Councilmember O'Connor discussed Item No. 9a regarding the CV S Pharmacy and inquired if Bear Creek Capital purchased the residential homes in the development area. Mr. McCauley responded that CVS Pharmacy has options to buy them, and it is a private development with no City funding requested. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Study Session. Motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Informal Open Forum at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared before Informal Open Forum. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to close the Informal Open Forum. Motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to reconvene the Study Session at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Continuing with discussion on Item No. 9a, Councilmember O'Connor said that she wants assurances that the homeowners want to sell their properties. Councilmember O'Connor discussed Item No. 9b with regard to the approval of the first reading of the Ordinance. She said she would like to see the motion changed to two motions, one to approve first reading and set second reading and the second motion to approve the Public Hearing for March 28, 2005. Mr. McCauley explained that the first item is a resolution that approves the Planning Commission recommendations for the rezoning and the second item is an Ordinance that makes the PUD effective and creates the rezoning. WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS No time permitted for discussion of Work Session agenda items. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous items. 02/28/05 -3 DRAFT ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the Study Session at 6:56 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 02/28/05 -4- DRAFT I Y MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Informal Open Forum at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/ Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. No one appeared before Informal pp o e 1 Open F orum There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION A moment of silence was offered for the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:01 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/ Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. 02/28/05 -1 DRAFT 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Niesen commented on an incident that recently occurred in which a train was blocking the roadway at the France/ Azelia crossing. She said the stopped train held up traffic, including a school bus that had to back up and turn around. She said she had talked with the City Manager regarding regulations about trains blocking the roadway, and it is a violation for a train to block a crossing for more than ten minutes. She stated that she had discussed this incident with a representative from Canadian Pacific. She further stated that this can create a dangerous situation in an emergency, and it is a violation of the law. She said there is a fine of $300 for each violation and encouraged people to report if there is a train blocking a crossing for more than ten minutes. Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the February 23, 2005, Community Meeting held by the Police Department. She said there were speakers of different ethnic backgrounds including Liberian, Hispanic, and Hmong who talked about some of the cultural differences. She said that she also attended the Human Rights Coalition poster contest meeting. She reported that the awards night for the poster contest will be held at the Brooklyn Center Library on March 15. Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Crime Prevention meeting on February 16, and there are 191 Neighborhood Watch groups, with five interested groups. She said the Citizen Police Awards will be in Constitution Hall on April 20, 2005, and the Crime Prevention golf tournament will be held May 20, 2005. She reported that she attended the February 23 and 24, 2005, Police Community meetings, and she hosted the Special Events Committee wrap -up meeting on February 24, 2005, and attended the Youthrive Peacemaker breakfast. Councilmember O'Connor reported that she attended the Police Community meetings, and the Housing Commission meeting, which had Tim Willson as guest speaker to talk about the Opportunity Site plans. Mayor Kragness. reported that she attended the Northwest Hennepin Teen Pregnancy Community meeting and two Eagle Scout Court of Honor programs at St. Alphonsus for Ryan Snee and Steve Gerber. She also said she met with Ambassador Weah at City Hall last Friday, and said that he is the UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador and recipient of the 2004 Arthur Ashe Courage Award for his humanitarian work, and is running for president of Liberia. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the amendment of removing the February 14, 2005, Work Session Minutes, and removing Item No. 7c from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Item No. 1 Oc and that the rest of the Council Consideration Items be renumbered consecutively following I Oc. Motion passed unanimously. 02/28/05 -2- DRAFT 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the February 14, 2005, Study Session minutes and the February 14, 2005, Regular Session minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL Bruce Nelson Plumbing Heating 1272 S Point Douglas Rd, St. Paul RENTAL Renewal: 407 -607 70th Ave N 504 604 69th Ave N Gary Brummer River Glen Apartments (128 Units) 4 assaults, 10 disturbing peace 1 burglary, 1 arson, ]fire 5239 Drew Ave N (Two Family) William Washington 0 calls 6809 Fremont Place N (Single Family) Terry Hartmann 0 calls 1543 Humboldt Place N (Single Family) Kwi Ha Wong, Suburban Properties 0 calls 4806 Twin Lake Ave (4 Units) Gregory Young 2 disturbing peace, I drug Initial: 6512 Chowen Ave N (Single Family) David Moulder 0 calls TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Brooklyn Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, OSSEO SCHOOLS WILLOW LANE ADDITION This item was removed from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Item No. l Oc. 02/28/05 -3- DRAFT 7d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -15, 2004 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIRS RESOLUTION NO. 2005-35 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-15,2004 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIRS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8a. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, LIONS PARK SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS L RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, CONTRACT 2005 -A, LIONS PARK SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS City Manager Michael McCauley said that there are two Public Hearings for the Improvement Project and Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Todd Blomstrom would provide a presentation. Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Todd Blomstrom displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the Neighborhood Improvement Program and specifically the Lions Park South Neighborhood Project. He reviewed the Neighborhood Improvement Program explaining that the purpose was to replace aging and deteriorated City infrastructure. He said the proposed project includes roadway, storm drainage, and utility improvements for the Lions Park South Neighborhood. Mr. Blomstrom said there are two Public Hearings; the first Public Hearing is to order the improvements and authorize development of plans specifications for the project, and the second Public Hearing is to consider certification of proposed special assessments for the project. He reviewed the improvement needs that were identified in the feasibility report, including pavement deterioration and poor drainage in the streets; corrosion and cast iron pipe material in the water main; root intrusion and infiltration in the sanitary sewer; and pavement subgrade and local flooding in the area of storm sewer. 02/28/05 -4- DRAFT He reviewed the proposed improvements as follows: Streets curb and gutter, driveway aprons 32' wide: 54th Avenue and Russell Avenue 36' wide: 53rd Avenue (Penn to Russell) 32' wide: remaining streets Sanitary sewer new structures and pipe Water main new ductile iron pipe Water and sewer services replacement to ROW Storm sewer extensions, treatment Reforestation following spring Mr. Blomstrom reviewed the project budget and the various funds that would pay for the cost of this project, with special assessments being $3,851 per lot for street and storm drainage. He reviewed the special assessment payment options as follows: 1. Pay in full no interest between March 1 and September 30, 2005 2. Pay in full from October 1 to November 29, 2005, with interest calculated at 5.5% 3. Pay in installments with property taxes over a 10 -year period starting in 2006 with interest calculated at 5.5% He explained that partial prepayment cannot be accepted, although a property owner could pay off either the street assessment or the storm drainage assessment. Mr. Blomstrom reviewed the preliminary project schedule which anticipates the project being bid April 19, 2005, with substantial completion by October 31, 2005. He also explained that there will be a preconstruction meeting that all property owners in the area will be notified of and encouraged to attend. Other forms of communication with property owners will be a newsletter, the construction hotline, the City's web site, and the City Construction Coordinator. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Del Eriksson, 2207 55th Avenue North, addressed the Council and inquired how the assessments are being allocated and if the cost is divided equally. He said that it was mentioned in the presentation that along 55th Avenue North the pipe was not being replaced, and he believes they should not be assessed for the same amount. Mr. McCauley responded that the water improvements are paid out of the water utility fund, and the assessment allocation of cost for this ro'ect is for portion of the total cost of street and curb and p J gutter. Mr. Blomstrom explained that 55th Avenue residents will get new water services, although the 16 inch water main is not being replaced. He further stated that the assessments that are being proposed are only for the street and storm drainage, and the utility replacements are being paid for from the water fund. 02/28/05 -5- DRAFT Dawn Salzwedel, 2219 55th Avenue North, addressed the Council and inquired about the trees that would be taken and replaced and the project bidding process and cost estimates. Mr. Blomstrom responded that generally trees are removed and replaced if the water service lines from the street to the home are blocked by trees planted on top of the water service. He further said that despite the fact that the water main in the street is not being replaced, the water services are being replaced and there may be the need to remove trees. With regard to the bidding process and cost estimates, Mr. Blomstrom responded that the cost is estimated each year, however the City has built a database of project costs over the past 12 years. He further stated that it is a competitive bidding process, bid on the open market to any large construction company. Mr. Eriksson addressed the Council and added that when this project is complete, the considerable sums spent on maintenance repair work will cease, and he inquired where those savings will be reflected. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the sanitary sewer leaks more and more as the system gets older and generates more waste water. The Metropolitan Council bills the City for the waste water and it is divided among citizens. He said that the savings are reflected Citywide in a sanitary sewer rate, however the savings are not reflected specifically to each project area. Tim Leick, 5401. Penn Avenue North, addressed the Council and explained that he is planning on selling his home and inquired how the special assessments affect his sale. Mr. McCauley responded that Mr. Leick would need to disclose to the buyer that there is a pending assessment on the property. Mayor Kragness added that the buyer and seller could also negotiate the special assessment. Joseph Lampe, 2118 55th Avenue North, addressed the Council and discussed construction quality control, as he observed that the sidewalks were uneven after Logan Avenue was completed. Sharon Valerius 2218 55th Avenue North, addressed the Council and inquired about the trees that would be removed and whether or not the homeowner would be informed about which ones would betaken. Mr. Blomstrom responded that there would be a map at the preconstruction meeting which would identify which trees need to be removed. Everett Lindh, 2107 55th Avenue North, addressed the Council and inquired about having plumbing problems taken care of during the project rather than at another time and whether or not there were contractors available for that type of work. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the property owner would need to negotiate a deal with the contractor. He also said that a schedule would be available so that they could see when the contractor would be coming through. Mr. Eriksson addressed the Council and expressed his appreciation for the information provided at the meeting. He also said he had witnessed on Logan Avenue that the water connections on some of the properties were sticking up above the grass. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the City is more aggressively pursuing testing, such as concrete and packing. He further explained that there is a punch list with a final list of items that must be completed before final payment is made to the contractor. 02/28/05 -6- DRAFT Mr. Eriksson further stated that curbing creates water pollution and is a bad thing for the environment. He inquired about the short length of time of the assessment. Mayor Kragness responded that if the assessments were extended further, the interest would cost more. Councilmember Carmody added that the street bonds for the project are for ten years. Councilmember Lasman asked for clarification from Mr. Blomstrom regarding the question about curbs and the water pollution from the runoff. Mr. Blomstrom responded that to mitigate for potential water quality impacts, the project includes the installation of sediment structures and the rehabilitation of a storm water pond within Centerbrook Golf Course. The main benefit of the curb is that it dramatically extends the life expectancy of the paved street. Ms. Salzwedel addressed the Council and inquired about the 5.5% interest rate, as she believes it is higher than the market is right now. Mr. McCauley responded that it is rounded up approximately 2% from what the bonds cost to sell. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Carmody encouraged homeowners who choose to contract for water service replacement on their own to get more than one bid. She also commented that at times the homeowners would not be able to use their driveways and may need to make certain arrangements with the Construction Coordinator for access. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the warranty on improvement projects. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the improvement projects generally have a one -year warranty and any defects need to be caught before the warranty runs out. Councilmember Niesen inquired about whether property owners can opt out from the removal of trees in their yard. Mr. Blomstrom responded that there was an option last year for affected homeowners not to replace the water service and to preserve trees. He explained that if a homeowner opts out and their water service needs repair, the City is not responsible for the repair. Councilmember O'Connor expressed her appreciation for the input from the residents. She discussed the water quality issue in Hennepin County and explained that she prefers no curbs and suggested that possibly in the future it could be looked at to do street improvements with no curbs. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-36 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 02/28/05 -7- DRAFT RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005-01,02,03, AND 04, CONTRACT 2005 -A, LIONS PARK SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01 AND 2005 -02, CONTRACT 2005 -A, LIONS PARK SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Mr. McCauley said that the second Public Hearing is for assessments for Improvement Project 2005- 01 and 2005 -02, Lions Park South Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-37 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01 AND 2005 -02, CONTRACT 2005 -A, LIONS PARK SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. PROPOSED USE OF 2005 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2005 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS 02/28/05 -8- DRAFT Mr. McCauley said this is the Public Hearing on the projected use and setting the budget on CDBG funds that are rovided b the Federal government through Hennepin County. He explained that p Y g g p under Federal rules there are limitations on the use of funds, and each City is limited to a 15% cap on public service projects. He said that both the CEAP and H.O.M.E. programs are categorized as public service projects. He explained that the major component is the Housing Rehabilitation Program, which is administered by Hennepin County, and it is the same percentage allocation as it has been for the last one or two cycles. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Steve Klein, CEAP Executive Director, addressed the Council and expressed appreciation for this funding. He explained that the two largest groups being served are in the age group 80 to 84 and 85 He outlined the services provided, which include outside maintenance such as grass mowing and trimming and inside cleaning and minor repairs. Jo Walter, Director for the H.O.M.E. Program, addressed the Council and expressed appreciation for the funding. She explained that last year 32 different jobs were completed in Brooklyn Center. She said that the goal is to help the homeowners keep their houses up to code and not become an eyesore in the neighborhood. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember O'Connor commented that she wished the Federal government would stop collecting taxes and reduce the taxes rather than giving the money back to Hennepin County to distribute to cities. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -38 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2005 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. is 02/28/05 -9- DRAFT 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-002 SUBMITTED BY BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE EIGHT EXISTING LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 (58TH AVENUE NORTH) AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD INTO TWO LOTS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS FEBRUARY 17, 2005, MEETING. Mr. McCauley explained that Item Nos. 9a and 9b relate to the same location and developer. He said the first resolution is the preliminary plat approval to combine eight existing lots into two lots. If the resolution were adopted, then the second part is to adopt a resolution which accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation and the rezoning and adopts an ordinance to effect that rezoning to the Planned Unit Development. Bill Tippmann, Bear Creek LLC, addressed the Council and discussed the CVS Pharmacy proposal. He said that CVS is working with Hennepin County on approximately 30 locations. Two sites are complete in Plymouth and Maple Grove and two are under construction in New Hope and Chanhassen. He said he estimates that in the next two to three years there will be approximately 50 to 60 sites. He explained that it is an assemblage of 5 different properties and they have an agreement with the dental clinic to co- develop the two properties together for co- access and shared parking. He said they have had several meetings with Hennepin County Traffic Department to control both Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Boulevard, and he outlined the three access areas. He discussed the fence requirements between the commercial and residential properties, noting that a six -foot privacy fence and landscaping would buffer between residential properties and the dental clinic and an 8 -foot fence between CVS Pharmacy and residential as per the City's Code. He said the area between the residential properties and CVS Pharmacy would serve as a storm water detention area with plantings. Mayor Kragness explained that there had been a question at the Study Session regarding whether or not there are agreements with all five property owners. Mr. Tippmann responded affirmatively, and noted that the owner of three of the properties was in the audience. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the agreements were voluntary. Mr. Tippmann responded affirmatively. Dan Soffa, 3605 Evergreen Lane, Plymouth, addressed the Council and said he is the owner of three of the properties and is very happy with the proposed purchase agreements. Councilmember Niesen said that she had talked to two of the homeowners, and one had no idea of this proposed project. She also said that one of the homeowners was re- roofing because an inspector had come by last year and cited the property for code violations. There was discussion amongst Councilmembers Niesen and O'Connor regarding the two properties and whether or not they were rental or owner occupied. 02/28/05 -10- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked Mr. Tippmann if the properties are in contract to be sold. Mr. Tippmann responded affirmatively. Councilmember Niesen expressed her opposition to this development at this location because she believes it goes against what the City has discussed and is planning to do. She supports the walkable and wheelable communities' concept which orients stores close to the street to promote walking and allows for more green space. She further stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan has this area zoned for a service facility, such as a coffee shop or barber shop, not a large, tall retail building with drive -thru service. She said she welcomes CVS Pharmacy but raised the question of whether the store could be located at a different site, as there are several vacant commercial properties in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Tippmann said that CVS has chosen this site after reviewing several other sites in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen discussed the Opportunity Site and the goal to place retail businesses in that site. She said this will change the character of the neighborhood and traffic would be a concern. She suggested other sites such as Jerry's NewMarket site, Rainbow site, or Brookdale for this type of development. She said she does not believe this store is suitable for this location. Councilmember Lasman said that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan was to remove single family housing from Brooklyn Boulevard since it is an inappropriate use, and this development does support that plan. Councilmember Niesen said that the difference is what it is zoned for is to protect the neighborhood. Mayor Kragness said that the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal thoroughly and made recommendations. She further stated that it is very well studied before it goes to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Niesen said that the focus of the Planning Commission is compliance and aesthetics, and it is not their responsibility to decide what fits with the City Council goals. She said that if this business were to fail, it would be another vacant building in the City and the City has enough of this type of business. She further_ requested the justification for why CVS Pharmacy chose this site, and she would like to see who received letters and what the public comments were regarding this proposal. Councilmember Carmody said the issue that she has with the proposal is the traffic on Bass Lake Road and how much that will increase. She further stated that she understands the concept of the walkable and wheelable communities that are acceptable, and she wouldn't want it to look like that. She inquired about the radius of the properties who had received letters notifying of this development. Mr. McCauley responded that it would have been somewhere between 300 and 500 feet from the property lines of the proposed rezoning. 02/28/05 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Lasman said one of the purposes of PUD zoning is to give the Council flexibility so that it can make changes to the zoning. She asked Councilmember Niesen what her specific concern was with the development. Councilmember Niesen responded that the Comprehensive Plan did not propose retail in this area but service or office use. She said that the retail is concentrated in the Opportunity Site area, as well as the area where Rainbow was located and closer to I -694. She further stated that she does not believe that CVS Pharmacy will succeed in this proposed location. Councilmember Lasman inquired if Councilmember Niesen's main concern was that the business would fail. Councilmember Niesen responded that her concerns are the parking lot configuration, the height of the building, the lack of cohesiveness with the neighborhood, the increase in traffic, whether the design will fit in with the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Plan, and that it does not support the Comprehensive Plan. She further stated there are plenty of other spaces available in the City and does not want to discuss this further until she can see the justification for this location. There was discussion regarding the intersection and medians on both Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Boulevard, including the turn lanes and short distance for allowing stacking of cars. Councilmember Niesen said that this development takes away green space and also hinders the watershed protection. She requested the justification for CVS Pharmacy to choose this location, and she inquired if the City Manager had a copy of that report. Mr. McCauley responded that he did not have that report and further stated that the only reason the City would require financial and feasibility study information is if City money were involved in the project. He said that when it is a market place development the City needs to look at if it fits the zoning and uses and the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that it has been the Council's policy to take residential property off of Brooklyn Boulevard and put in commercial uses, as the residential property is not sustainable. He said that CVS conducted their own study and decided that this was the most advantageous site. Councilmember Niesen inquired why CVS would want to takes homes and locate in an area that is not properly zoned. Mr. Tippmann responded that the CVS business model is to be located at a major intersection on the "going home" side of the street. He further stated that the other sites do not fit the CVS business model. Mayor Kragness stated that she would like to move forward with this item, and further information could be brought back to the Council for the March 28 Public Hearing. Councilmember Niesen explained that she believes that if the Council goes forward with this proposal at this time, it will be approved no matter what. She further stated that it is a tall building that does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Kragness responded that the office building next to this site is a three -story building and there is a large church north of that, so CVS Pharmacy would not be out of place. 02/28/05 -12- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen explained that as you drive south on Brooklyn Boulevard, the office building is set back and the neighborhood is dark and quiet. Mayor Kragness responded that the neighborhood is located on a busy, noisy intersection. Councilmember O'Connor said that this development will produce more water runoff and chloride into Shingle Creek. She said that there already are plenty of other business sites available, the City doesn't need another pharmacy, and she doesn't want to give up the green of those five properties. Councilmember Carmody said that she has been attending the watershed meetings and that new development such as this type of project improve the water quality because they require storm water detention ponds or basins. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -002 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as follows: I The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003. 4. Appropriate cross access and possibly cross parking agreements between the proposed Lots 1 and 2, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be developed and filed with the final plat. 5. The applicant shall dedicate a sidewalk easement along the northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1, prior to release of the final plat. This sidewalk easement shall extend a minimum of one foot beyond the outside edge of the existing sidewalk. 6. The final plat shall include a 20 ft. wide drainage and utility easement along the alignment of the existing sanitary sewer transecting Lot 2, Block 1. The applicant shall provide written certification from a licensed land surveyor or engineer that the easement shown on the plat is centered along the alignment of the existing sanitary sewer. 7. All easements necessary to provide utility service to the proposed site development shall be dedicated to the public for public use with the final plat. 8. Water and sanitary services to the existing five homes within the preliminary plat boundary must be disconnected at the mains prior to building demolition. Service disconnections shall be done in conformance with sewer and water service disconnection specifications available at the City Engineering Division office. 9. The homes and accessory buildings within the boundaries of the preliminary plat shall be demolished and /or removed from the property prior to final plat approval and filing. 10. Building permits for construction of any building comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 shall not be issued until the final plat has been approved by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 02/28/05 -13- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody raised the question of whether there was a timing issue for this rezoning and also if all the conditions were met whether the Council could deny the rezoning even though most of the site is zoned C 1. Mr. McCauley responded that the zoning decision must be made within 60 days of the date the application was filed, which would be March 21, 2005. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained that with regard to the preliminary plat there is not much discretion to turn it down if it is consistent with subdivision regulations. He said that Councilmember Niesen brought up a number of factors that might be relevant and might be legal basis for turning down a rezoning for a Planned Unit Development application or site plan review and most of those concerns don't relate to disapproval of the preliminary plat, but traffic would be relevant to a certain extent. He said one factor that would be relevant is that it is not consistent with the zoning. He explained that the PUD and plat probably don't work unless the property is rezoned. Mr. Hoffman said that one of the conditions of the Planning Commission is that the preliminary plat is contingent upon approval of the rezoning. Mr. LeFevere said there is a legal basis for turning this downright now because it isn't consistent with zoning. He further stated that the Council can approve it and move forward, as there is a condition recommended by the Planning Commission that is contingent upon approval of the rezoning, which he believes will require four votes for final adoption since it is rezoning residential to commercial. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification about the preliminary plat approval and the rezoning regarding the required number of votes needed for each. Mr. McCauley responded that the rezoning would need four votes to pass. Mr. LeFevere said that the motion on the floor required only three votes to approve the preliminary plat. Mayor Kragness asked if the preliminary plat was approved, could the rezoning be held over until the next Council meeting. Mr. McCauley responded that the Council could lay over the PUD to March 14 and make a decision prior to it being approved by virtue of Council inaction. Mr. LeFevere added that in the case of the rezoning, the City can unilaterally request an additional 60 days. Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification if the Council were to take no action on the PUD rezoning. Mr. McCauley responded that if the City Council did not reject the application, then it is approved by virtue of the failure to reject and the inaction of the Council. Mr. LeFevere further added that the Council could extend the time period. Councilmember Carmody clarified that if four votes were not received on the PUD, then it is rejected /denied, and she raised the question of the applicant's challenge of the denial. Mr. McCauley responded that with regard to whether or not the applicant could successfully challenge the denial, it is debatable. Mr. LeFevere added that he would like to research further regarding the facts. He said that with regard to rezoning, the Council discretion is broader. 02/28/05 -14- DRAFT I Mayor Kragness suggested that the Council take action on Item No. 9a (preliminary plat) and table Item No. 9b (rezoning). Councilmember Niesen inquired if the Council voted on Item No. 9b (rezoning) and there wasn't four votes, would it fail. Mr. LeFevere responded that Item No. 9b was only the first reading and in his opinion the four votes are required on the final act. There was discussion whether or not Item No. 9b (rezoning) should be tabled, and Councilmember Carmody inquired whether there was a point to tabling this item when two Councilmembers have expressed that they may not vote in favor, even if additional information is provided. Mr. McCauley said that it may be beneficial to have the City Attorney review the materials. Councilmember Lasman said that the Council should remember that this is a business bringing in tax base and not asking for any City funding or TIF money and would alleviate the tax burden on residents. Councilmember Niesen said that if the business fails, there will be another large, vacant concrete building, it does not fit the character of the neighborhood, it is right down the street from a Walgreen's, it affects the watershed protection, and she wants to embrace the green space. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to call the question. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Kragness called for a vote on the motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -002 subject to the aforementioned conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, and Councilmember Lasman. Voting against: Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed. 9b. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-003 SUBMITTED BY BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R -1 AND C -1 TO PUD /C -2 AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL THROUGH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCESS FOR A 13,000 SQ. FT. CVS PHARMACY ON A PROPOSED 1.53 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS FEBRUARY 17, 2005, MEETING. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to table Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 to the March 14, 2005, City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, Councilmember Lasman, and Councilmember O'Connor. Voting against: Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed. 02/28/05 -15- DRAFT A RECESS There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to recess at 9:26 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Councilmember Niesen returned at 9:37 p.m. 9c. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-004 SUBMITTED BY MARY BARRUS /GARY SWENSON AND THE ESTATE OF PAUL FAGERHAUGH. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION OF LAND BY METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN BY A FORMAL PLAT AT 5445 AND 5441 CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS FEBRUARY 17, 2005, MEETING. Mr. McCauley explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a subdivision of land by metes and bounds description rather than by a formal plat since it is overly expensive, burdensome, and unnecessary in that no new legal lots are being created. He said the purpose is to relocate the common property line between the two properties by 10 feet so that the shared driveway would be located on the 5441 Camden Avenue North property. He further stated that the existing garage on 5445 Camden Avenue North would need to be relocated and the driveway would be oriented such that a new driveway leading to 55th Avenue North can be constructed. He stated that the City's subdivision Ordinance allows for a variance for the subdivision by metes and bounds description. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application with four conditions. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -004 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as follows: 1. The legal descriptions and certificate of survey showing the division of 5445 Camden Avenue North shall be filed with Hennepin County. 2. Once new legal descriptions have been established, the City Assessor is authorized to allow the combination of the 10 ft. by 149.85 ft. parcel of land to 5441 Camden Avenue North. 3. The garage currently located at 5445 Camden Avenue North shall be relocated under a properly executed building permit such that it meets all required building setbacks for the newly configured lot lines for this property. Said relocation shall be accomplished prior to the filing of the metes and bounds division with Hennepin County. 4. A new driveway leading from 55th Avenue North to the relocated garage on 5445 Camden Avenue North shall be constructed and a properly executed driveway permit for construction of the access on 55th Avenue shall be obtained from the City Engineering Department. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Niesen returned at 9:37 p.m. 02/28/05 -16- DRAFT 10a. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COORDINATING BOARD'S LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO CREATE A VIABLE SOLUTION FOR ELECTRONIC WASTE Mr. McCauley said he had left a voice mail message for Mr. Eckhert of Hennepin County inviting him to attend the City Council meeting to answer questions from the Council. He noted that no one from Hennepin County was present. He suggested the Council could pass on this item and take no action and neither table nor approve it, but only bring it back if Hennepin County approached the City for consideration again. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to take no action on a Resolution in Support of Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board's Legislative Initiative to Create a Viable Solution for Electronic Waste. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 2005 TO BE MINNESOTA FOODSHARE MONTH Councilmember Carmody read the proclamation while Mayor Kragness presented the proclamation to Steve Klein, CEAP Executive Director. It was noted the year should be changed from 2004 to 2005 in the text of the proclamation. Mr. Klein addressed the Council and expressed his appreciation and said that CEAP could provide food barrels to schools and businesses for donations. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adopt the proclamation as amended to declare March 2005 to be Minnesota FoodShare Month. Motion passed unanimously. loc. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, OSSEO SCHOOLS WILLOW LANE ADDITION Councilmember O'Connor raised several questions regarding the Adult Education Center including its purpose, its cost, the number of students in the program, and whether or not an existing school could have been renovated for this program. Dr. John Fredericksen, Osseo Area Schools Assistant Superintendent for Administration, addressed the Council to respond to the questions. He said that the Adult Education Center serves four basic kinds of adult education, including high school diploma, basic education, GED, and English language learners. He said it is funded by State dollars as well as some local taxpayer dollars. He explained that various spaces have been leased for the Adult Education Program, and it would be cheaper to build a new building than it would to remodel or renovate an existing school. He further stated that this location would reduce transportation costs, as it is on a bus line and within walking distance for many of the participants. He also said that there were 1,056 students who participated in the Adult Education Program between July 1, 2004, and February 18, 2005. 02/28/05 -17- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -39 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, OSSEO SCHOOLS WILLOW LANE ADDITION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, Councilmember Lasman, and Councilmember Niesen. Votin g against: ainst: Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed. 10d. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 279 FOR EXCHANGE OF LAND Mr. McCauley explained that as part of the platting process there needs to be an exchange of land involving City property located at Willow Lane Park and Osseo School District property. I RESOLUTION NO. 2005-40 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 279 FOR EXCHANGE OF LAND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, Councilmember Lasman, and Councilmember Niesen. Voting against: Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed. 10e. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 279 FOR JOINT USE OF LAND Mr. McCauley said that when the City has a park adjacent to a school, there is an opportunity for joint uses of land, and this resolution would set forth conditions and terms for public use of that space. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -41 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 279 FOR JOINT USE OF LAND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, Councilmember Lasman, and Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 02/28/05 -18- DRAFT 10L MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS TO FINANCIAL COMMISSION AND NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSION Mayor Kragness said there are two vacancies on the Financial Commission and one vacancy on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. Mayor Kragness requested ratification from the Council for her nomination of Robert Anderson, 5525 Knox Avenue North, and Robert Paulson, 7012 France Avenue North, to the Financial Commission. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to ratify the Mayoral nomination of Robert Anderson and Robert Paulson to the Financial Commission. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Kragness requested ratification of her nomination of Donna Allard, 1217 63rd Lane North, to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to ratify the Mayoral nomination of Donna Allard to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. Motion passed unanimously. log. REPORT ON FRANCHISE FEES Mr. McCauley said that when the Council adopted the franchise fee Ordinance it also adopted a resolution that required a report at the second meeting in February 2005 on the monies collected and use of the monies. He said in 2004 the City received roughly $612,000 in franchise fees, and the target was around $666,000. The franchise fees collected were for less than a full 12 months of franchise fees. The monies that are collected are used to sustain the Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Program. He stated that this is simply a report and no action is needed by Council. There was discussion regarding franchise fees and the monthly charge of $1.48 per month per household, the need for franchise fees due to the LGA cuts, and whether the Council would like an annual report regarding franchise fees. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman requesting to receive an annual report on franchise fees in the former part of the year. Motion passed unanimously. 11. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 02/28/05 -19- DRAFT r MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL /ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council /Economic Development Authority met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor /President Myrna Kragness at 10:12 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor /President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager/Executive Director Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. COUNCIL MEMBER LASMAN: COMMUNITY CENTER MEMBERSHIPS, QUALIFICATION FOR FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD MEMBERSHIPS City Manager /Executive Director Michael McCauley said that Director of Community Activities, Recreation, and Services Jim Glasoe had provided him with some additional materials regarding types of memberships at other facilities. He stated that Mr. Glasoe had checked with Northwest Athletic Club, Life Time Fitness, along with the City of Shoreview regarding types of memberships. He said that Northwest Athletic Club offers a couple membership available to two adults who are married or both reside at the same address; and the City of Shoreview offers a dual membership. Councilmember Lasman said she requested this item for discussion as a follow up to the letter that was written last year regarding the definition of family memberships. She said she attended a town meeting hosted by Senator Scheid and Representatives Hilstrom and Nelson and was approached by a woman who discussed the types of memberships available at the Community Center. She said that working in a school there are many types of family units, and that the rules defining family may have been written when family was more narrowly defined. She raised the question whether the Council would want to reconsider household memberships at the Community Center. Councilmember Lasman stated that the City Ordinances defined the term family in Section 12 -201 and includes temporary guests in Section 12 -803. She further explained that the Council may want to look at a definition for the family membership at the Community Center based on the same guidelines used in the Ordinance. She suggested that the Park and Recreation Commission may want to study this issue. 02/28/05 -1- DRAFT 4 There was discussion regarding whether to limit the number of persons per family/household membership as well as restructuring the membership fees at the Community Center. Council consensus was to refer this issue to the Park and Recreation Commission for its review. COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN: TRAIN BLOCKING CROSSING ON AZELIA Councilmember Niesen said she had commented on this issue in Council Reports at the City Council meeting and said that $300 could be collected each time a train is in violation by blocking the crossing. She stated that she talked with Laura Baenen with Canadian Pacific Rail and explained that it is unacceptable for trains to block the crossing. COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN: DISCUSSION OF TAX AND AID STATISTICS Councilmember Niesen discussed the statistics that Council Members received with regard to tax and aid. She noted that in a ten -year period from 1995 to 2005 the State aid had dropped from 36% to only 10% of the revenue. She further stated that Brooklyn Center taxpayers are paying 90 Mr. McCauley responded that the report only references two sources of revenue not the total revenue, however the ratio between the two sources is correct. He further stated that building permit fees, license fees, and recreation fees are not included in the revenues in this report. Councilmember Niesen said the State is not kicking in its portion and that is why Brooklyn Center taxpayers are suffering, as people are not able to afford their taxes. DATE OF FALL CITY COUNCIL RETREAT DISCUSSION There was discussion regarding the date for the Facilitated Council Retreat with Mr. Neu. Councilmember Carmody raised the question of whether to continue with Mr. Neu since he is from Colorado and the City pays to bring him here. Councilmember Niesen responded that she likes his leadership and would prefer not to switch. There was no further discussion regarding changing facilitators. Council reviewed the available dates provided by Mr. Neu, and it was Council consensus to schedule the Facilitated Council Retreat for Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 2:O0 p.m. DISCUSSION OF PROSECUTION SERVICES SCHEDULE OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS Mr. McCauley said that prosecution services would be up for review for the period 2006 -2009. He further stated that the Council had determined not to seek requests for proposal for the period 2002- 2005. He further stated that the matter is on the agenda for Council direction on whether the Council wishes to request proposals for prosecution services for the period 2006 -2009. The Council discussed its satisfaction with the prosecution services currently provided by Carson and Clelland, and it was Council consensus not to seek requests for proposals for prosecution services. 02/28/05 -2- DRAFT l REVIEW OF DRAFT CITY WATCH ARTICLE ON COUNCIL RETREAT Mr. McCauley said that he had drafted a City Watch article which would provide an overview of the City Council Retreat. He said after reviewing Mr. Neu's materials, he would suggest including mention of the Northbrook Shopping Center and Brookdale redevelopment. There was discussion regarding the Northbrook Shopping Center, and Councilmember Niesen inquired what the City will do when it acquires the property. Mr. McCauley responded that the buildings would be demolished, the dry cleaning solvents would be remediated and it would either be developed with the proposed plan or requests for proposals would be developed. Councilmember Lasman raised the question of the pending lawsuit with regard to eminent domain proceedings and if the City should lose in court. Mr. McCauley responded that the City would then not be able to acquire the property and code enforcement would need to issue compliance orders on the property that are being withheld based on the pending eminent domain action. Discussion ensued regarding TIF District #3 funding, and Mr. McCauley said that in TIF District #3 monies have been spent on soil corrections in two areas, the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard area, and Storm Water Ponds at Centerbrook. Councilmember Niesen suggested closing TIF District #3 and opening a new TIF District. REVIEW OF CARL NEU'S DRAFT COUNCIL RETREAT REPORT It was Council consensus that Carl Neu's draft Council report was acceptable as drafted. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Carmody said she drafted a letter to the Watershed Commission requesting that the meetings be held at a different location as well as a different time so that lunch would not need to be included. Councilmember Niesen said this issue had previously been suggested to the Watershed Commission and that she had suggested that the meetings be held in the evening. It was Council consensus that Councilmember Carmody send the letter to the Watershed Commission with support of the City Council. Councilmember Lasman referred to the spring edition of City Watch and inquired about Elder Express Transportation and whether the City was double funding or if Elder Express was funding itself. Mr. McCauley responded that Elder Express is PRISM. Councilmember O'Connor said that she had received a phone call from a resident who mentioned there were not enough tread mills at the Community Center and there was also one that was broken. She asked if the Community Center could purchase more tread mills or repair the broken one. There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to extend the Work Session beyond 11:00 p.m. Voting in favor: Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor. Voting against: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, and Councilmember Lasman. Motion failed. 02/28/05 -3- DRAFT i ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember /Commissioner Carmody, seconded by Councilmember/ Commissioner Lasman to adjourn the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 11:01 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor/President 02/28/05 -4- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b f Office of the City Clerk OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk �9'bnM DATE: March 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 14, 2005, are as follows: MECHANICAL Midwest Heating Air Conditioning 26355 Tucker Road, Rogers RENTAL Renewal: 3012 -18 51st Ave N (Two Family) Steven Debra Elhardt 0 calls 5322 72nd Ave N (Single Family) Lenita Elon 0 calls 7200 -7224 Camden Ave N Sean Bannerman Evergreen Apartments (80 Units) I- assault, 19 disturbing peace, I drug, I burglary 5637 Emerson Ave N (Single Family) Douglas Pederson 0 calls 4708 Lakeview Ave N (Single Family) Gary Scherber 0 calls 5030 Lilac Drive (Single Family) Adelaide Cassell 0 calls 5900 Washburn Ave N (Single Family) John Gail Lamberte) 0 calls Initial: 3213 62nd Ave N (Single Family) Rishiram Khaimraj 0 calls 5444 Camden Ave N (Single Family) Jon Helgason 0 calls 6613 Camden Drive (Single Family) Mark Herstrom 0 calls 6124 Emerson Ave (Single Family) Nicolas Lewis 0 calls 2318 Ericon Drive (Single Family) Fong Yang 0 calls 6301 Grimes Ave N (Single Family) Mai Her 0 calls 6736 Quail Ave N (Single Family) Henry Yang 3 disturbing peace, 1 assault TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Dollar Saver 6090 Shingle Creek Parkway 0 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org City Council Agenda Item No. 7c i�l City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, Lions Park South Area Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements On February 28, 2005, the City Council conducted a series of two public hearing on the proposed Lions Park South Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements. The first hearing was to consider ordering the improvements and authorizing the development of plans and specifications. The second hearing was to consider certification of proposed special assessments for the improvement project. Following the public hearings, the City Council ordered the improvements and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications. Construction plans, specifications and contract documents have been completed for the Lions Park South project. Staff is prepared to begin the project bidding process upon authorization from the City Council. The bidding process would involve advertisement of the project in the City's official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin magazine. Sealed bids would be collected, opened on a scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff anticipates that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for consideration of the contract award at the April 25, 2004 City Council meeting. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids. Detailed plan sheets will be available for review at the City Council meeting. 0 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, LIONS PARK SOUTH AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on February 28, 2004, by Resolution No. 2005 -36 ordered Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, Lions Park South Area Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications; and WHEREAS, staff under the direction of the City Engineer have prepared said plans and specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for said improvement project are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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 i p said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. YP p City Council Agenda Item No. 7d Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DEFERRING SCHEDULED SOLICITATION OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS ON PROSECUTION SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a regular schedule for considering the provision of prosecution services; and WHEREAS, under that schedule, a request for proposals would be solicited for the provision of criminal prosecution services for the period 2006 -2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the provision of prosecution services and determined that the continuation of the provision of services by the law firm of Carson, Clelland Schreder would be appropriate and that no financial or service benefit would be obtained by soliciting proposals; and WHEREAS, the City Council does not wish to solicit requests for proposals for the period 2006 -2009 based on its evaluation that it is in the City's best interest to continue its current arrangement with the law firm of Carson, Clelland Schreder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that staff be and hereby are directed not to seek proposals for the provision of prosecution services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the next scheduled review of prosecution services be for the period 2010 -2013, reserving to the City Council the right to reconsider and solicit proposals for the provision of prosecution services at any time that the Council would deem it in the City's best interest to solicit proposals. March 14, 2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. City Council Agenda Item No. 7e 1 adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR. WHEREAS, the City Council met in a facilitated workshop on February 5, 2005; and WHEREAS, the facilitator, Carl H. Neu, Jr., has prepared a Summary of Key Observations and Conclusions made by the participants during the facilitated workshop. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Summary of Key Observations and Conclusions as prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr. attached hereto as Exhibit A be and hereby is received and accepted. March 14, 2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. Exhibit A 0 COMPANY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP Conducted on February 5, 2005 SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS MADE BY THE PARTICIPANTS Submitted by Carl H. Neu, Jr. February 7, 2005 Neu and Company and the Center for the Future of Local Governance TM 2005 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP Conducted on February 5, 2005 SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS MADE BY THE PARTICIPANTS Submitted by Carl H. Neu, Jr. February 7, 2005 I. INTRODUCTION On February 5, 2005, the mayor, council members, city manager and assistant city manager of Brooklyn Center conducted a City Council Leadership Workshop. A copy of the objectives and agenda for this workshop are included in this report as Appendix A. II. SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS MADE BY THE PARTICIPANTS. A. Identification of the "Big Things" the Council must focus on during 2005. As an opening discussion, the participants were asked to identify the "five big things" that council must focus its attention on during the year 2005. The objective here was to provide all members of the council and the city manager and assistant city manager an opportunity to discuss their respective observations about what should be priority issues to be addressed during this year. The following items were presented by the participants: 1. City Center /Opportunity site 2. Brookdale 3. Elimination of vacant store fronts and decline 4. Neighborhood streets, curb and gutter program 2 5. Crime prevention reduction 6. Funding of community services 7. Northbrook Center 8. Brookdale Boulevard 9. Community diversity issues 10. High taxes 11. Appropriate use of eminent domain, especially with regard to redevelopment activities 12. "Government too big" what should city government be doing? 13. Joslyn pollution 14. Intergovernmental relations 15. Demographics of the community consistent with what we are trying to achieve 16. Residency requirements for employment in the city 17. Dispatch conversion 18. Enterprise funds After discussion, the participants identified the following "big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005: City Center /Opportunity site Brookdale Northbrook Center Funding of community services Dispatch conversion. 3 B. Reexamination of the City Council Goals for the Year 2005. After completing the exercise /discussion above, the participants then reviewed the City Council Goals that were adopted for the year 2005. A copy of these goals is contained in this report as Appendix B. The following change was made: 1. Elimination of item (4) Focus 2004 under Goal No. 2. The reason for this elimination is that these action steps identified for 2004 have been completed. No other changes were made to the goals that have been adopted for 2005. It was concluded by the participants, however, that while the council has reaffirmed the goals it adopted for 2005, it should be stated that Northbrook and Brookdale are areas of continuing emphasis and priority for the city council because of their importance to the community and its economic vitality. C. City Manager Evaluation Process The participants reviewed the current City Manager Evaluation Form used by the council. A copy of this form is included in this report as Appendix C. The following observations or recommendations were made relative to proposed changes to the City Manager Evaluation Form and City Manager Evaluation Process. 1. Proposed changes to the City Manager Evaluation Form: City council members should review the current City Manager Evaluation Form and submit their proposed modifications to the form for discussion at a scheduled work session. It was suggested that a "1 through 5 rating system" be used for each item evaluated in the form. For example, the current form has five categories of topics that are reviewed. Within each of these categories are additional items or subsets pertaining to the city manager's performance. The rating scale would be used for each item or subset. The proposed rating scale might look something like what appears below: 4 Item Being Rated Rating: 1 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 Did Not Needs Met Exceeded Greatly Achieve Improvement Expectations Expectations Exceeded Expectations Comments: City Council at the scheduled work session would approve the changes in terms of format, content, and rating scales to be used in the City Manager Evaluation Form. 2. Proposed changes to the City Manager Evaluation Process The council members identified the following proposed steps to be used for the conduct of the City Manager Evaluation Process: City manager provides a report on accomplishments to the council and notes any significant shifts or changes in goals and priorities may have occurred which need to be taken into consideration when evaluating his performance. City council members provide their individual evaluations to the city attorney. City attorney prepares a consolidated report. City council reviews and approves the report that the mayor will then take to the city manager. The city manager then responds to the report given to him by the mayor reflecting a summary of the council's conclusions. City council makes any appropriate changes or revisions to the report based on city manager feedback. Mayor makes public statement, as required, pertaining to the manager's evaluation. 3. Timing of the Evaluation: 5 The artici ants noted that the evaluation should be conducted at p p the end of the year, especially when changes in council membership occur as a result of elections. This will ensure that the council members evaluating the manager were the ones who served on council during the evaluation period. D. Discussion of Council Teamwork and Performance Four council members, during the afternoon of the workshop, conducted a comprehensive discussion about working relationships among the members of city council and the effectiveness of the council's meetings. 1. Observation about city council working relationships and meeting effectiveness What is Frustrating Me/Us What is Going Well? (Council Members)? No real issues that are Lengthy discussions before creating divisiveness within council comes to consensus the council Congenial discussions Apparent disconnect that occurs sometimes between the city council and the city manager, especially in dialogues attempting to clarify issues and increase understanding. Increased respect being People don't speak up shown by council members (sometimes it is difficult to for each other hear what people are saying) Good handouts and staff Some members talk too long work in preparation for the meetings Council is better at Amount of detail sometimes focusing goals and issues "loses" individuals Council has adjusted to the Nature of some of the issues budget (some council members may not agree with the issue or the approach the council is taking in dealing with it) 6 Lack of "in depth" analysis and information Parliamentary procedures used during the course of the meetings Length of discussions and debates Individuals, on occasion, appear to be taking some issues personally Mayor not appropriately "limiting debate" in a productive manner. 2. Self Assessment Once the perceptions listed above were identified, each council member completed the brief self assessment contained in Appendix D to this report. Council members then shared their respective self assessments with the other participants and solicited feedback and further observations about how others would have rated them relative to the five items contained in the self assessment. The discussion stimulated by the self assessment led to a comprehensive sharing of observations and ideas about how council members could work more effectively with each other, improve overall council erformance and improve the productivity P p p p Y of council meetings. 3. Ten things team members can do to increase teamwork and performance. The council members then explored the ten items listed in Appendix E to this report. Particular emphasis was given to the four items that were noted with an asterisk. E. Suggested Topics and Date for the Fall City Council Leadership Workshop. 1. Suggested date for the workshop: 7 It was concluded that the workshop should be conducted sometime between August 22 and September 7. The workshop can be a full day workshop or one that starts in the afternoon and extends into the evening. Council members at the next work session will select a date for the Fall workshop. 2. Suggested items for the Fall workshop agenda: Review of the City Manager Evaluation Form and Process to be used to evaluate the managers performance for the year 2005. A dialogue between the manager and the council relative to the council's and manager's expectations of each other and ways in which they can mutually support each other in the achievement of their responsibilities and duties. The purpose here is to strengthen the already productive relationship and ensure that the council and manager have an opportunity to discuss fully their working relationship and ways in which they can mutually support each other in this relationship. Identifying issues that the city council should be tracking on a continuous basis and establishing effective systems or means for tracking these issues. 8 APPENDIX A City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota City Council Leadership Workshop February 5, 2005 8:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. 1. Objectives: Upon completion of this workshop, the participants will have: a. identified and discussed the 5 most important topics the council members feel they must address to improve city council leadership performance, teamwork and productivity /effectiveness as a governing body b. assessed factors essential to: achieving and sustaining superior council performance their collective and individual contributions to the team's success C. identified the "Big Things" council must focus on during 2005, the outcomes it desires, and how to set and stay the course necessary to achieve those outcomes d. reviewed how council and manager wish to evaluate their respective and each others' performance within the council- manager /staff partnership e. discussed/updated councils' adopted goals for 2005 f, assessed, and identified approaches to, improving procedures, processes, and policies relating to council meetings and decision making g. defined a date and list of proposed topics for the Fall Council Workshops. 2. Agenda: 8:30 a.m. Introductions and Overview of the workshop objectives and agenda. 10 8:45 a.m. Council Focus: the "Big Things" for 2005 10:00 a.m. Review and updating of council's adopted goals for 2005 11:00 a.m. Evaluating council, council member and city manager performance. e 12:00 Noon Lunch 12:45 p.m. The "5 most important topics" we want to address for improving city council leadership performance, teamwork and productivity /effectiveness. 2:00 p.m. Council and council member success factors. 3:15 .m. Broadcasting of "Other City Council Meetings" on Cable Access p g Y g System. 3:45 p.m. Review of, and suggested improvements to, council operating procedures, processes and policies. 4:30 p.m. Planning for the Fall Council Workshop. 5:00 ourn .m. Adjourn J Pre- workshop Reading Assignment: Achieving and Sustaining Superior Council Performance 11 APPENDIX B City Council Goals for the Year 2005. Goal No. 1: Create a new Brooklyn Center "Downtown" blueprint. (Opportunity Site Brooklyn Center's Central Business District) (1) Issue: Defining and building the future "Downtown" of Brooklyn Center. (2) Long -term outcome: creation of an exciting and successful "mixed -use" Downtown for Brooklyn Center. (3) Benefits: a new image and exciting experience for our community's benefit and future expanded commercial tax base attracting new businesses and supporting current businesses new excitement about Brooklyn Center and its Downtown area utilization of a prime location "greening" of Brooklyn Center creating a whole new image for the City attracting new residents to the community. (4) Focus— 2005: Establish a well defined process for receiving public input and participation and defining the key components and parameters desired for the area. (Meetings, Charettes, etc.) Define key components and parameters desired for the future development of the area. Solicitation of proposals from development communities. Revise of the City's Comprehensive Plan and related Zoning Ordinances. 13 Amend the current funding (T.I.F. Tax District 3) mechanism. Issue bonds. Acquire property. Goal No. 2. Continue funding of community services. (1) Issue: City's ability to sustain its current service levels and quality given current funding situations and declines in LGA funds from the State. (2) Long -Term Outcome: The long -term outcome will be determined by which choices the City makes pertaining to funding of City services. The following four approaches need to be taken: Defining options which might include levy increases, reducing costs, a mix of both. Prioritizing city services so that available funding can be directed to high- priority services. Selecting the option or options the city wishes to pursue relative to revenue generation and funding of city services. Implementing that option and adjusting city service levels accordingly. (3) Benefits: Establishing realistic expectations among the citizens about what services the city can provide given current funding realities and options. Prioritizing services so that if service cuts are required as a result of funding decreases, available funding will go to the higher- priority services. 14 Seek means of increasing revenues. (4) Focus 2004: Council meeting with City Finance Commission to establish levy for 2005. Council adopting mil levy increase for 2005. (5) Focus 2005: Definition of projected equipment needs an d p J unfunded future costs anticipated in each of the City's departments. Support legislative change in LGA formula (work with AMM and legislative representatives). Develop council consensus on service funding priorities. Communicate with the community that the council is working strongly on building a stronger future for the City through concentrating its efforts on the Opportunity Site and the benefits that can ensure from it for the entire community. Goal No. 3: Sustain Code Enforcement, Crime Prevention, and Traffic Enforcement Efforts. Goal No. 4: Continue the Street Reconstruction Program. Important Note: Goals 1 and 2 become the "super ordinate goals" that will be absorbing most of the council's leadership and the municipal staff's management capacity during 2005. Goals 3 and 4 are reflective of the council's commitment to sustain the efforts these goals addressed because of their extreme importance to the community. 15 APPENDIX C 2003 FORM CITY MANAGER EVALUATION FORM 1. City Council Goals for 2003 Responsibility: The City Manager should implement those goals that can be accomplished through staff provide support and information to facilitate City Council achievement of its goals Overall Evaluation of Work on -City Council Goals Overall, has the City Manager worked to implement and facilitate adopted City Council goals? Yes Partially No Comments: 2. Administrative Support for City Council: Responsibility Maintain effective communication, both verbal and written with Council Maintains availability to Council, either personally or through designated subordinates Systematic reporting to Council of current matters involving City government Materials presented to Council are clear, concise and understandable Has the City Manager provided the City Council with background and other information to allow the Council to make informed decisions as described above? Yes Partially No Comments: i7 2003 FORM Has the City Manager assisted the City Council in, clarifying complex issues and understanding administrative, legal and procedural requirements? Yes Partially No Comments: 3. Chief Administrative Officer duties: Has the City Manager provided administrative oversight and direction in the following areas: City Fiscal affairs (budget, expenditures) Plans and organizes preparation of an annual budget with documentation that conforms to the direction received from the City Council Supervises the utilization of human and fiscal resources within the budgetary plan Financial reporting is timely and understandable City operations Services are delivered in a timely and effective manner (ie. snowplowing, police and firs response, park :maintenance, recreation) Citizen issues are responded to appropriately and in timely fashion Issues affecting service delivery are anticipated and dealt with effectively City projects Annual street project is undertaken in organized and effective manner City Enterprise operations Water, sewer, and storm sewer funds are financially stable and services delivered in effective and efficient manner Golf and Liquor funds are operated in a manner that results in meeting financial targets so that they are self sufficient and meet Council goals for operation such as minimum of $75,000 transfer fron� Fund 2003 FORM Earle Brown Heritage Center is operated as community asset, while meeting operational self-sufficiency from its own revenues Yes Partially No Comments: 4. Intergovernmental Relations: Has the City Manager: been sufficiently active in participating in municipal organizations to which the City belongs had a relationship with other cities that is beneficial to the City of Brooklyn Center been effective in communicating or representing Council positions to other governmental bodies worked cooperatively with other organizations where beneficial to the City of Brooklyn Center Yes Partially No Comments: 5. OVERALL EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE: Overall, City Manager's efforts to implement and facilitate 2000 Council goals has been: Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Comments: 19 2003 FORM Overall City Manager's ty g s admuustrahve support of City Council has been: Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Comments: Overall, City Manager's discharge of administrative duties in fiscal affairs, operations, projects, and enterprises has been: Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Comments: Overall, City Manager's efforts in intergovernmental matters have been: Excellent Good" Satisfactory Poor Comments: 20 APPENDIX D BROOKLYN CENTER SELF ASSESSMENT How would you rate your ability to collaborate with others? 4 consistently 3 often 2 sometimes 1 never 1. 1 request help from others, council members and the city manager, and give them assistance in return. 2. 1 pitch in with my fellow council members to make decisions and get things done in an effective manner. 3. 1 focus on other people's welfare as much as on my own. 4. 1 keep others, especially my fellow council members and the city manager, informed about what I'm doing if it affects them. 5. 1 am patient in group situations or meetings, even if it takes time to sort things out. 3 22 I Appendix E i i Ten Things Team Players Do 1. Pitch In and Assist Others 2. Reach Out to Quiet or New Teammates or Co- Workers *3. Encourage Teammates Who Are In Conflict to Talk Through Their Differences 4. Share Credit You receive for a Job Well Done *5. Suggest Team Building and Problem- Solving Techniques q You May Know 24 *6. Check to See How Your Decisions and Actions Might Affect Others 7. nc ude Everyone in the nformation Loop When Appropriate 8. Seek nformation and Expertise of Others 9. Communicate Your Own Activity so That t s Pub ic Know edge *10. nform Others What They Can Do to Support Your Efforts and Ask Them to Te You What You Can Do to Support Their J and The Team's Efforts. a 25 City Council Agenda Item No. 8a City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community i MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs, Delinquent Weed Removal Costs, and Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Procedures and General Information The series of public hearings are scheduled for March 14, 2005 to consider certification of proposed special assessments. The Council called for these hearings at its Februaryl4, 2005 meeting. The purpose of the public hearings is to receive public comments prior to considering the attached resolutions certifying special assessments for diseased tree removal costs, delinquent weed removal costs and delinquent public utility service accounts. All potentially affected property owners have been notified by certified mail of the date of the public hearing and the amount of the proposed special assessments, with the exception of those with delinquent public utility service accounts. Those property owners have been notified by first class mail. Attached is a memorandum from the Director of Fiscal Support Services providing a four year historical trend for delinquent public utility service accounts. The proposed special assessment rolls are included with each of the three ro osed Council Resolutions. p P 1 0 6301 Shingle Creek Parkwa y Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org Recommended Procedure Hold the hearings concurrently. 1) Review staff report 2) Council discussion 3) Open public hearings and take public comment 4) Close public hearings 5) A resolution is provided for each levy roll. The resolutions may be adopted with a single motion. Some property owners may choose to object to a special assessment; other property owners may choose to appeal an assessment. An objection is typically a concern expressed by the property owner about the amount of the assessment, or perhaps an assertion that they are not responsible for its payment. It is most common to receive objections regarding assessments for tree removal or weed destruction, with property owners disputing an amount, or stating that the work occurred under the previous property owners. An appeal is a legal challenge to the assessment. Property owners must file with the City Clerk a written notice of objection before or at the public hearing, and then follow up with service of notice of appeal on the City and filing with district court. These types of disputes often require both parties to obtain appraisals and review and possibly negotiate assessments, and can lead to legal hearings. Should objections or appeals be filed with the Clerk prior to the public hearing, or should any person appear at the hearing and object to or appeal an assessment, it is recommended that the Council: Refer any substantive objections to staff for a report back to the Council at a continued hearing. An example might be an issue whereby staff would need to research the history of a particular complaint, and assemble documentation. Consider removing the objected -to assessment from the proposed levy roll and adopting the remaining proposed assessments. If appeals are filed, staff and the City Attorney will advise the council of options for handling the dispute and the litigation. Payment Options Available to Property Owners. Once an assessment roll is adopted by the Council, the owner of each property has the following payment options: 1. Pay the entire amount of the special assessment, without interest, between March 15 and April 30, 2005. 2. From May 1 through November 29, 2005, the property owner may pay the total assessment, with interest calculated from May 1, 2005 to the date of payment. 3. If payments are made with property taxes, the first payment will be due with taxes in 2006. The total principle will be payable in annual installments for the period stated on the levy roll. Interest is paid on the unpaid balance. 4. Partial prepayments (such as paying half now and certifying the balance) are not allowed under current assessment policy. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmo asman 'e n O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: March 10, 2005 SUBJECT: Certifying Delinquent Public Utility Accounts At its February 14, 2005, meeting, the Council set a Public Hearing date for certification of special assessments for delinquent public utility service accounts. In reporting back to the Council on the procedure for certifying delinquent public utility accounts, attached are materials which outline the established procedure, along with a memorandum from Director of Fiscal and Support Services Daniel Jordet. Attachments 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Memorandum Date: 23 February 2005 To: Michael McCauley City Manager From: Daniel Jordet Director of Fiscal Support Servic Re: Certification of Delinquent Utility Bills Each spring and fall, the City of Brooklyn Center certifies delinquent utility bills to Hennepin County for collection as part of the ensuing year's property tax bill. This process stars with a letter to the customer notifying them that their account is past due and that the amount will be certified against their property taxes. This first letter details the process and the legal authority for certification. Customers are given the opportunity to pay their outstanding bill without additional penalty prior to this certification. Some customers respond to this letter and pay their bills. Some do not. Those that do not receive a second letter indicating that their account will be certified for collection with property taxes following a public hearing. The date, time and location for the public hearing are included in this notice. Again, some customers will pay their account balances after receipt of this letter while some do not. Over the past few years the numbers of customers and the dollar amounts in question have been as follows: Number of Accounts 2002 2003 2004 2005 Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall 1 st Letter 761 786 650 664 885 788 884 2nd Letter 451 424 406 383 471 442 520 Final Assessment 321 340 347 325 384 394 Dollar Values 2002 2003 2004 2005 Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall 1st Letter 161,571.39 147,125.63 135,654.08 131,859.01 188,513.66 144,514.60 199,612.05 Letter 103,202.94 107,502.25 97,456.00 98,559.97 138,018.80 102,507.52 152,661.45 al Assessment 83,228.34 88,413.56 84,524.08 86,178.40 119,402.92 88,062.69 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director DATE: October 12, 1997 SUBJECT: Utility Billing Collection Procedures The City Council approved a change in procedure this year to use special assessment to the property taxes as a primary method of collection of delinquent utility bills instead of shutting off water service. We have just completed our first full special assessment cycle under this policy and the City Council has asked for a report of the results. Several projections of costs, staff time requirements, and process effectiveness were made during the discussion of the proposed change. One was that utility maintenance staff time would be saved. The maintenance staff previously hung shut off warning tags on about 60 homes per month, sometimes making several visits to a given home. A few water services were actually shut off each month. These resulted in angry and potentially dangerous confrontations with residents. The time spent by the maintenance staff has been entirely saved and is now spent on maintaining our system. The confrontations are also avoided. It is still possible, in rare circumstances, that we will do a shut off. It was projected that Finance Department staff time required would be about the same for the certification process as it was for.4he shut off process. We feel the time required has actually been reduced by the certification process. Interruptions by phone calls and customers at the desk made it impossible to accurately measure time spent on either process. In late July, we sent out approximately 600 warning letters to residents who's accounts were delinquent and would be assessed. Many of them responded by paying, so that only 228 accounts were on the certification role adopted by the City Council on September 8, 1997. The delinquent balances totaled $44,764.35 and certification fees totaling $6,840 were added to those balances. We ultimately achieve the same success in collecting our accounts with the certification fee covering any additional costs. The most important differences between the policies are in the service aspects. The City's customers are not being deprived of an essential service. Hostile contacts between the staff and the public have been vastly reduced. The possibility of violent confrontations at the time water is actually shut off has been eliminated. I feel the policy of assessing delinquent utility accounts for collection on the property taxes has been a outstanding success, due to both its efficiency and customer service aspects. I am recommending that the City Council approve it on a permanent basis as the primary process for collection. I am also recommending that the City Council approve it for use twice in 1998, according to the attached calendar, as an experiment into the most efficient number of times per year to do assessments. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED UTILITY BILL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CALENDAR 1998 1998 FIRST SECOND ACTION ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Mail original utility bill on or before 12/1/97 6/4/98 Mail delinquent utility bill on or before 12/31/97 7/9/98 Delinquent utility bill due on or before 1/28/98 7/29/98 Certification cut -off date (accounts pended by) 1/30/98 7/31/98 Mail notice of public hearing to property owner and Notice of public hearing must be published in official newspaper Request levy number 2/18/98 8/26/98 Public hearing 3/9/98 9/14/98 Deadline for prepayment without additional interest 4/8/98 10/14/98 Deadline for prepayment to avoid inclusion on next year's taxes 4/9/98 11/25/98 Deliver final certification levy roll to Hennepin County 4/10/98 11/30/98 pubutil \policies \calendar.xls 11/12/97 7:03 PM RESOLUTION AMENDING THE POLICY REGARDING THE SANITARY SEWER RATE FOR THE ELDERLY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Peppe and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SCHEDULE FOR CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS City Manager McCauley explained this resolution would approve a schedule for certifying delinquent utility accounts as special assessments twice during 1998. This is a change from 1997 when certification was only done once. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -216 Member Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SCHEDULE FOR CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Carmody and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETENTION OF CARSON AND CLELLAND FOR CITY PROSECUTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT City Manager McCauley explained solicitation was recently made for prosecution services. Based on a review of the three proposals submitted, Mr. McCauley recommended acceptance of the proposal from Carson and Clelland. With Carson and Clelland, the hourly rate is lowest, it is the only firm with its principal offices in Brooklyn Center providing the complete access to our officers for complaints and other services, and the service from the firm in the past has been outstanding. Both criminal prosecution and code enforcement have been handled efficiently and effectively. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -217 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 0 (11/24/97 —10— MEMORANDUM D TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director CH DATE: November 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting a Schedule for Certifying Delinquent Public Utility Accounts as Special Assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls The City Council approved a change in procedure this year to use special assessment to the property taxes as a primary method of collection of delinquent utility bills instead of shutting off water service. We have just completed our first full special assessment cycle under this policy. The attached resolution approves a schedule for certifying delinquent utility accounts as special assessments twice during 1998. This is a change from 1997 when certification was only done once. We are attempting to fine tune the administration of this policy as we gain experience with it. One aspect of that is to find the best balance between inducing residents to come current with their payments verses the administrative burden of going through the process multiple times each year. A majority of the cities we surveyed last spring indicated that they only certify once a year. Most of the rest certify twice. A few certify more than twice a year. I am recommending that the City Council approve the use of certification for use twice in 1998, according to the attached calendar, as an experiment into the most efficient number of times per year to do assessments. adoption: Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. 97 -216 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SCHEDULE FOR CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO THE HEN V PIN COUNTY TAB ROLLS WHEREAS, the City Council has found it to be in the best interest of the City to adopt Resolution 97 -86 which- specified certification by special assessment to the property taxes as the primary means of collecting delinquent public utility accounts; and WHEREAS, minor elements of the process can change from year to year and can be better set in an administrative procedure approved annually by the City Council at the time utility rates are adopted; and WHEREAS, staff is proposing to certify special assessments on two occasions in 1998 as the best balance between prompt collection of delinquent accounts and efficiency in the collection process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the attached Utility Account Special Assessment Calendar for 1998 is adopted. November 24, 1997 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Robert Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER UTILITY ACCOUNT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CALENDAR FOR 1998 1998 1998 FIRST SECOND ACTION ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Mail original utility bill on or before 12/1/97 6/4/98 Mail delinquent utility bill on or before 12131/97 7/9/98 Delinquent utility bill due on or before 1/28/98 7/29/98 Certification cut -off date (accounts pended by) 1/30/98 7/31/98 Mail notice of public hearing to property owner and Notice of public hearing must be published in official newspaper Request levy number 2/18/98 8/26198 Public hearing 3/9/98 9/14/98 Deadline for prepayment without additional interest 4/8/98 10/14/98 Deadline for prepayment to avoid inclusion on next year's taxes 4/9/98 11/25/98 Deliver final certification levy roll to Hennepin County 4/10/98 11/30/98 pubutil \policies \caiendar.xis 11/19/97 10:49 AM its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Tree Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused the removal of trees on certain properties within the City during 2004 under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.023 and by written agreement with the owners of such property; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where tree removal costs are to be assessed, together with the amounts proposed to be assessed to each property; 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 tree removal costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Said assessment roll of tree removal costs is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 16238. 2. The assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable in equal annual installments with interest thereon at five and one -half (5.5) percent per annum, extending over a period of five years. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2006, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from May 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before April 30, 2005. After April 30, 2005, he or she may pay the total special assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from May 1, 2005, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close -of- business November 29, 2005, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFIED LEVY ROLL MARCH 14, 2005 TREE REMOVAL 2005 UNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs five (5) years PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY PROPERTY Address Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. AMOUNT Leqal Description 16238 101- 118 -21 -13 -0012 1 $4,133.62 1627 58TH AVE N IJUDITH PAURUS 16238 101- 118 -21 -22 -0086 I $393.28 1 1 6006 HUMBOLDT AVE N (DONNA MARTIN 16238 101- 118 -21 -23 -0055 1 $318.50 15807 GIRARD AVE N ITHOMAS MCKEVKA 16238 101- 118 -21 -23 -0076 1 $330.32 15801 EMERSON AVE N jPAUL BARBARA REID 16238 101- 118 -21 -24 -0093 1 $480.68 15848 BRYANT AVE N IRENATO &DEBORAH JAPOR 16238 101- 118 -21 -33 -0160 1 $2,912.25 15417 FREMONT AVE N ILEILANI FLEMISTER 16238 101- 118 -21 -34 -0061 1 $565.87 15406 COLFAX AVE N (CYNTHIA GRANQUIST 16238 101- 118 -2142 -0034 1 $318.50 1520 56TH AVE N [DANIEL TOMLANOVICH 16238 102- 118 -21 -31 -0002 1 $393.32 15631 HILLSVIEW RD [GLENN AUBRY COLEMAN 16238 102- 118 -21 -31 -0013 1 $432.69 15548 NORTH LILAC DR IMARGARET ZEELEE 16238 102- 118 -21 -31 -0019 1 $565.20 12406 ERICON DR N iERIN CUNNINGHAM 16238 102- 118 -21-41 -0110 I $3,594.74 15516 KNOX AVE N [BARBARA MCLAUGHLIN 16238 102- 118 -2142 -0009 1 $1,208.25 15541 LOGAN AVE N IPETER MILINKOVICH 16238 102- 118 -21-43 -0077 1 $486.00 12006 55TH AVE N IKARLA STEPHEN DYE 16238 102- 118 -21-43 -0127 1 $330.32 12206 54TH AVE N IMARY BETH DAVIDSON 16238 103- 118 -21 -13 -0008 1 $1,151.00 15717 BROOKLYN BLVD 1JOANN GILBAUGH 16238 103- 118 -21 -24 -0089 1 $1,071.76 15800 HALIFAX AVE N IANGUS MCEACHERN 16238 110- 118 -21 -13 -0019 1 $432.69 1334949TH AVE N IRAHEL BOGALE 16238 110- 118 -21 -13 -0027 1 $524.63 14937 BEARD AVE N IMCCHAEL REILLY VICTORIA HAMLIN 16238 125- 119 -21 -32 -0063 1 $352.88 17106 HUMBOLDT AVE N ITAWNYA MICHAEL PAUL 16238 126- 119 -2143 -0078 1 $1,018.50 17031 NEWTON AVE N [BARBARA BIEDERMAN 16238 127- 119 -21 -32 -0048 I $1,109.02 17200 NOBLE AVE N IDEWEY KRISTI LEDIN 16238 127- 119 -21 -32 -0057 I $1,204.88 7101 MAJOR AVE N (PAUL GAIL STONE 16238 127 119 -21 -34 -0047 I $2,376.37 7036 HALIFAX AVE N (LAWRENCE JOHNSON 16238 133- 119 -21-41 -0001 1 $2,190.00 16443 NOBLE AVE N ISYLVESTER AYESHA BOBRAY 16238 133- 119 -21-41 -0044 1 $2,725.87 16313 ORCHARD AVE N (WILLIAM HILL 16238 133 -119 -21-42 -0037 $330.32 16425 SCOTT AVE N IMAISOUA THONG YANG 16238 133- 119 -2144 -0073 I $3,771.00 16225 NOBLE AVE N IOLUFEMI OLAGBAJU 16238 134- 119 -21 -12 -0051 1 $1,013.1716818 EWING AVE N ILORRAINE SENESCALL 16238 134- 119 -21 -13 -0053 1 $3,042.00 16506 DREW AVE N ISHANE SUTTON KAREN BIRD 16238 134- 119 -21 -24 -0041 1 $1,338.00 14200 WINCHESTER LANE ICARRIE BLAISDELL 16238 134- 119 -21 -32 -0001 1 $2,722.50 14500 63RD AVE N IDALE LILJEQUIST BETTY JACOBS 16238 134- 119 -21-44 -0032 1 $1,098.37 13318 MUMFORD RD IOLUFEMI OLAGBAJU 16238 136- 119 -21 -12 -0062 1 $768.75 1500 67TH AVE N [MORRIS RUTH COOPER $44,705.25 r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its S adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Weed Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused noxious weeds and tall grass to be cut down on certain properties within the City under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 18 -271; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2005, there remained unpaid certain of these weed destruction accounts; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll for unpaid accounts from 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto and part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where an unpaid weed destruction account is to be assessed with the amount to be assessed; and WHEREAS, said statute authorizes the certification of delinquent weed destruction accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; 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 weed destruction costs: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said assessment roll of unpaid weed destruction accounts is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 16239. 2. The assessment as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2006, in one annual installment with interest thereon at five and one -half (5.5) percent per annum and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from May 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before April 30, 2005. After April 30, 2005, he or she may pay the total special assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from May 1, 2005, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close -of- business November 29, 2005, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. i 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk i The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution w P g g as 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 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFIED LEVY ROLL MARCH 14, 2005 WEED DESTRUCTION 2005 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Lew runs one (1) Year PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY PROPERTY Address Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. AMOUNT Leoal Description 16239 102- 118 -21-43 -0060 I $130.00 15331 MORGAN AVE N IJACK BONIFACE 16239 103- 118 -21 -13 -0087 1 $350.00 15842 ADMIRAL LA IWANONA RUFF, JOHN PEPPE 16239 103- 118 -21 -24 -0102 1 $130.00 15813 HALIFAX AVE N I,FETHI MOHAMMED /HIKMET ABDURASHID 16239 125- 119 -21 -32 -0063 1 $130.00 17106 HUMBOLDT AVE N ITAWNYA MICHAEL PAUL 16239 126- 119 -21-43 -0020 1 $130.00 16906 NEWTON AVE N [ERIC SYRSTAD 16239 128 -119 -21-41 -0124 $130.00 1LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CENTER BROOK ADDITION I KAREN LANG 16239 134- 119 -21-41 -0108 I $130.00 13013 65TH AVE N IERNEST STREMPKE MARIE KEELER 16239 136- 119 -21 -12 -0002 $130.00 16856 WEST RIVER RD IZEV OMAN 16239 136- 119 -21 -12 -0038 I $130.00 [LOT 30, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISIION NO. 310 [DAVID EVANSON 1 I 1 1 ITOTAL 1 $1,390.001 a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the records of the Public Utilities Department list certain accounts delinquent as of January 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, the owners of record of the properties served by each delinquent account have been notified of the delinquency according to legal requirements; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and City Ordinances, Sections 4 -105 and 4 -201 authorize certification of such delinquent accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where a delinquent public utility account is to be assessed with the amount, including interest and service charges, to be assessed; 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 delinquent public utility accounts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said assessment roll of delinquent public utility accounts is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 16240. 2. The assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2006, in one annual installment with interest thereon at five and a half (5.5) percent per annum, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from May 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before April 30, 2005. After April 30, 2005, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. i RESOLUTION NO. I Interest will accumulate from May 1, 2005, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close -of- business November 29, 2005 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 1 of 42 ACCOUNT -NUMBE NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 100016000001 LARRY MEYER S Y 258.86 30.00 288.86 3311921120010 6843 TOLEDO AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1669 100021000309 JULIAN MENDOZA -TAPIA S Y 280.79 30.00 310.79 3311921120015 6813 TOLEDO AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1669 100035000702 DESIREE WILKERSON S Y 225.19 30.00 255.19 3311921120056 5318 68TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1653 100048000204 PAM PARADISE S Y 263.89 30.00 293.89 3311921120038 6713 TOLEDO AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1667 100050000704 THOMAS ANDREWS S Y 230.19 30.00 260.19 3311921120036 5312 67TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1650 100070000303 KIMBERLY SYKES S Y 289.11 30.00 319.11 3311921120040 6736 TOLEDO AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1678 100070000303 SEBON HAWKINS 2 Y 3311921120040 6736 TOLEDO AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1678 100079000404 KAREN EDEBURN S Y 231.37 30.00 261.37 3311921120072 6801 SCOTT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1665 100085000603 KHALI RASHEED S Y 260.63 30.00 290.63 3311921120066 6837 SCOTT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1665 100092000701 GLORIA SAWCHAK S Y 65.76 30.00 95.76 3311921120062 6812 SCOTT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1666 100122000102 ADAM ROTHSTEIN S Y 71.18 30.00 101.18 3311921110091 6824 REGENT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1662 100122000102 LOIS ROTHSTEIN 2 Y 3311921110091 6824 REGENT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1662 100141000802 ANDREW JOHNSON S Y 104.06 30.00 134.06 3311921110073 6737 QUAIL AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1655 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 2 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 100153000302 JOEY C. NIENABER S Y 482.68 30.00 512.68 3311921110062 6818 QUAIL AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1658 100156000003 DAVID DIGGS S Y 223.41 30.00 253.41 3311921110065 6800 QUAIL AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1658 100164000006 DEBORAH SALITERMAN S Y 243.30 30.00 273.30 3311921110087 6700 QUAIL AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1656 100167000705 MARTIN HAFERMANN S Y 210.49 30.00 240.49 3311921110058 6715 PERRY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1609 100169000503 DEBRA SCHLICK S Y 98.44 30.00 128.44 3311921110056 6727 PERRY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1609 100179000303 MICK MAGUIRE S Y 290.63 30.00 320.63 3311921110038 6839 PERRY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1611 100179000303 GENE L MAGUIRE B Y 3311921110038 7926 LACASA WAY BUENA PARK CA 90620 -2321 100183000710 DUCHESS WALKER S N 240.28 30.00 270.28 3311921110031 6830 PERRY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1612 100183000710 BEATRICE WILLIAMS B Y 3311921110031 5903 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2622 100211000304 ROBERT SHAW S Y 226.06 30,00 256.06 3311921110009 6836 ORCHARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1607 100229000304 BEVERLY DAVIS S Y 424.20 30,00 454.20 3311921110002 6825 NOBLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1604 100380000806 DEAN LITTLE S Y 247.05 30.00 277.05 2711921330013 6927 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1369 100380000806 LOLA LITTLE 2 Y 2711921330013 6927 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1369 I CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 3 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBE10NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 100384000402 OBIDIAH HENRY S Y 382.33 30.00 412.33 2711921330019 6914 LEE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1332 100406000805 DAN DEMPSEY S Y 286.43 30.00 316.43 2711921330042 6915 MAJOR AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1337 100417040111 JAMAN S LANE S Y 206.50 30.00 236.50 2811921410016 4807 WINGARD PL BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1212 100420030704 ED WILLIAMS S Y 237.22 30.00 267.22 2811921410031 4909 WINGARD PL BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1213 100423010603 TONYA TERRELL S Y 125.39 30.00 155.39 2811921410203 7000 QUAIL CIR W BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1210 100426030103 KIRK LUTZ S Y 207.54 30.00 237.54 2811921410062 5004 WINGARD PL BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1216 100436030903 BARBARA LATHAM S Y 165.23 30.00 195.23 2811921410090 7204 PERRY CT E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1203 100437010008 ZACHARY TAYLOR S Y 236.20 30.00 266.20 2811921410152 7205 PERRY CT E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1202 I 100437010008 ROSALYN TAYLOR 2 Y 2811921410152 7205 PERRY CT E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1202 100479000002 GLORIA M PEREZ S Y 380.05 30.00 410.05 2811921440040 6900 QUAIL AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1227 100565000502 TERRY L COTTEW S Y 246.31 30.00 276.31 2811921440042 7031 QUAIL AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1228 100578000001 MERLE DUERR S Y 197.33 30.00 227.33 2811921440068 6900 REGENT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1255 100603000904 ROBERTO CASTRUITA S Y 283.23 30.00 313.23 2811921430032 5106 70TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1232 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 4 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 100610000004 PHILL SMOGER S Y 310.48 30.00 340.48 2811921430009 6906 SCOTT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1259 100613000703 JOHN WILMES S Y 477.03 30.00 507.03 2811921430012 6924 SCOTT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1259 100613000703 LONG DOAN 2 Y 2811921430012 6924 SCOTT AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 100638030503 PATRICIA M BUTTELL S Y 94.85 30.00 124.85 2811921430049 6908 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1263 100638100607 JESSE P WILEY S Y 298.88 30.00 328.88 2811921430056 6936 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1263 100638290505 LEZLIE BOHANON S Y 228.33 30.00 258.33 2811921430114 7013 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1264 100638550204 NICHOLAS ANTWI S Y 292.63 30.00 322.63 2811921430103 5348 70TH CIR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1235 100638640102 MAURICE ROBERTS S N 75.69 30.00 105.69 2811921430126 7068 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1265 �I 100638640102 MAURICE ROBERTS B Y 2811921430126 3713 94TH COURT NO BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 -1837 100638640102 RACHEL ALLEN C Y 2811921430126 7068 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 100638910802 CLARENCE BLACKMAN S Y 230.49 30.00 260.49 2811921430139 7069 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1264 100639110405 ROBERT H MELANSON S Y 219.98 30.00 249.98 2811921430161 5339 71ST CIR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1239 100639390202 JAMES JONES S N 172.35 30.00 202.35 2811921420034 7164 UNITY AVE N 0 ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1275 it CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 5 of 42 ACCOUNT -NUMBE NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROSEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 100639390202 GENE OLSON B Y 172.35 30.00 202.35 2811921420034 4590 SHORE ACRES BLVD ST PETERSBURG FL 33703 -4258 100639500603 ANTOINETTE OLLIG S Y 219.00 30.00 249.00 2811921420046 5435 72ND CIR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1246 100639650906 VALERIE JACKSON S Y 208.21 30.00 238.21 2811921420061 5305 72ND CIR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1273 100639670701 TRAN NHAT S Y 239.69 30.00 269.69 2811921420063 5310 72ND CIR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1272 100639670701 NHI TRAN 2 Y 2811921420063 5310 72ND CIR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1272 I 100640020205 NEW OWNER S N 217.03 30.00 247.03 2811921420098 7193 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1277 100640020205 JULIE REYNOLDS B Y 2811921420098 9031 GLEN EDIN LANE NO BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 -1707 100706000504 ALVIN TUTTLE S Y 199.63 30.00 229.63 3411921210023 6707 GRIMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1745 100713000607 CINDY PRICE S Y 294.26 30.00 324.26 3411921210019 6728 GRIMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1744 100713000607 OPAL HALL 2 Y 3411921210019 6728 GRIMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1744 100748000503 DEAN DAVID S Y 232.54 30.00 262.54 3411921120001 3827 69TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1873 100787000705 DUANE CATTLEDGE S Y 242.41 30.00 272.41 3411921120046 6807 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1877 100788000604 MICHAEL MILLER S Y 130.32 30.00 160.32 3411921120047 6801 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1877 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 6 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 100797000502 EDDIE GONZALEZ S Y 217.05 30.00 247.05 3411921120022 6700 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1876 100798000402 CHERYL L HENDERSON S Y 275.50 30.00 305.50 3411921120021 6706 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1876 100808000202 MICHAEL A HIGH S Y 286.13 30.00 316.13 3411921120031 6818 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1878 100808000202 ANDREA L HIGH 2 Y 3411921120031 6818 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1878 100814000401 SANDRA WRIGHT S Y 293.49 30.00 323.49 3411921110043 6837 BEARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -4212 100926000904 BRAD EMHOLTZ S Y 117.84 30.00 147.84 3411921110064 3106 68TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -4217 100949000207 EUGENE SUGGS S Y 255.04 30.00 285.04 3411921110038 6806 BEARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -4211 101023000902 STANLEY LEINO S Y 281.29 30.00 311.29 2711921420025 7118 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1446 101054000103 DEBRA GROVE S Y 251.12 30.00 281.12 2711921420012 7051 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1435 101056000904 TIMOTHY J GRAHAM S Y 254.29 30.00 284.29 2711921430014 7037 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1435 101056000904 TIMOTHY J GRAHAM B Y 2711921430014 PO BOX 29844 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -0844 101062000107 JULIA GREENFIELD S Y 103.65 30.00 133.65 2711921430020 7001 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1435 101063000002 ISAIAH HOLMAN S Y 264.25 30.00 294.25 2711921430021 6943 DREW AVE N .BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1433 0 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 7 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBEIWAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 101068000502 DONALD WATZKE S Y 227.25 30.00 257.25 2711921430009 6942 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1434 101108000702 ERICK EDSTROM S Y 292.07 30.00 322.07 2711921420122 3616 VIOLET AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1467 101117000603 DAVE KRAUSE S Y 297.39 30.00 327.39 2711921420099 3724 VIOLET AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1469 101121000007 VENUSMARIE HINGOS S Y 246.49 30.00 276.49 2711921420095 7142 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1405 101126000503 MARY ROBECK S Y 233.62 30.00 263.62 2711921420090 3713 72ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1415 101226000402 JAMES KOCUR S Y 271.71 30.00 301.71 2711921310051 7131 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1445 101301000206 JASON BRIGGS S Y 372.71 30.00 402.71 2711921340028 7013 GRIMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1451 101321000802 LAWRENCE K JOHNSON S Y 252.49 30.00 282.49 2711921340047 7036 HALIFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1374 101330000704 LISA JOHNSON S Y 243.63 30.00 273.63 2711921310042 7106 HALIFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1356 101451010906 ALBRECHT LTD S Y 247.52 30.00 277.52 2711921330091 7066 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1370 101478000902 TALATA BAYSAH S Y 419.24 30.00 449.24 2811921410140 4706 WINGARD LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1231 101487000801 THOMAS L DEVRIES S Y 391.59 30.00 421.59 2711921320045 7213 MAJOR AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1341 101495000801 ROGER ZIERKE S Y 320.45 30.00 350.45 2711921320059 4507 71ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1312 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 8 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 101495000801 KATHY ZIERKE 2 Y 320.45 30.00 350.45 2711921320059 4507 71ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 101503000804 NANA OTU S Y 107.48 30.00 137.48 2711921320033 7100 MAJOR AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1340 101509000204 SERGIO A ANGUO GONZALEZ S Y 281.08 30.00 311.08 2711921320039 7212 MAJOR AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1342 101540000304 ELENA AYALA S Y 274.01 30.00 304.01 2711921320081 7207 KYLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1329 101552000803 BRETT CORBITT S Y 253.47 30.00 283.47 2711921320093 7130 KYLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1328 101555000503 CALVIN WILLIAMS S Y 95.33 30.00 125.33 2711921320090 7212 KYLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1330 101582000203 THOMAS GLENZINSKI S Y 242.62 30.00 272.62 2711921310100 4213 WOODBINE LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1345 101624040809 KRAIG KUTZ S N 105.25 30.00 135.25 3411921110014 6837 YORK PL BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -4208 101624040809 KRAIG KUTZ B Y 3411921110014 12370 OAKVIEW AVE BECKER MN 55308 -8941 101630000407 JAMES C RATH S Y 264.53 30.00 294.53 3511921220028 2910 68TH LN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1439 101633150405 DARYL A SHROPSHIRE S Y 226.53 30.00 256.53 3511921230070 6613 XERXES PL N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1761 101634010906 MARA LEVIN S Y 221.63 30.00 251.63 3511921230048 6654 XERXES PL N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1715 211021000805 MARK BATTLES S Y 253.63 30.00 283.63 2611921420108 7236 PENN AVE N 0 ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1051 I I CURRENT CERTIF ION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 9 of 42 ACCOUNT-N___ NAME/ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- R*,,END -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 211045000001 ALLAN THIELEN S Y 270.24 30.00 300.24 2611921430094 7028 OLIVER AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1053 211059000302 GENARO VASQUEZ S Y 275.25 30.00 305.25 2611921430105 6900 OLIVER AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1045 211065000503 THERESA YURECKO S Y 279.48 30.00 309.48 2611921430025 6931 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1036 211074000403 EDWARD DOLL S Y 80.04 30.00 110.04 2611921430081 7013 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1038 211106000607 MARK ROTTACH S N 102.31 30.00 132.31 2611921420048 7124 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1041 211106000607 MARK ROTTACH F Y 2611921420048 19384 3RD ST NE E BETHEL MN 55001 211106000607 GARY HANAGAN C Y 2611921420048 7124 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 211112000802 MALCOLM T VINGER S Y 248.26 30.00 278.26 2611921430074 7030 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1039 211120000810 MARANDA CLARK S Y 397.75 30.00 427.75 2611921430024 6930 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1037 211172000506 RODNEY D OPPEGARD S Y 77.51 30.00 107.51 2611921420028 7112 MORGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1033 211198000501 JOHN L WEBB S Y 201.81 30.00 231.81 2611921430046 7001 LOGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1022 211204000705 ABEDNEGO STILL S Y 230.26 30.00 260.26 2611921430040 7037 LOGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1022 211260000806 JOHNETTA FREEMAN S N 234.76 30.00 264.76 2611921440106 1600 69TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1403 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 10 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 211260000806 REBECCA SAMPSON B Y 234.76 30.00 264.76 2611921440106 8008 83RD AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55445 -2130 211309000101 DEBBIE PAINE S Y 360.67 30.00 390.67 2611921440033 7031 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1161 211309000101 MRS. FRANK GREGORY O Y 2611921440033 7031 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1161 211402000704 PAUL CAVALLARO S Y 163.75 30.00 193.75 2611921440021 7013 KNOX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1015 211439010305 DARNELL WASHINGTON S Y 369.34 30.00 399.34 2611921410106 7242 KNOX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1019 212006000503 WILLIAM CORWIN S Y 234.63 30.00 264.63 2511921320056 7212 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1157 212015000405 MICHAEL PAUL S Y 244.22 30.00 274.22 2511921320063 7106 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1155 212065000303 ERIC HAINEY S Y 259.42 30.00 289.42 2511921320017 1401 73RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55444 -2657 212072000404 DONALD HERNANDEZ S Y 267.99 30.00 297.99 2511921320118 7218 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1149 212112000603 JAMES NOSKA S Y 107.57 30.00 137.57 2511921330062 7019 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1138 212127000902 STEPHEN R GANDSEY S Y 197.27 30.00 227.27 2511921320012 7229 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1142 212129000702 GARALD SCHAKE S Y 262.08 30.00 292.08 2511921320011 7241 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1142 212135000906 GARY SCHWARTZ S Y 142.87 30.00 172.87 2511921320004 7216 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1143 CURRENT CERTIF ION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 11 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBERSNAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 212135000906 CHERYL SCHWARTZ 2 Y 142.87 30.00 172.87 2511921320004 7216 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1143 212140000203 GREG LARSON S Y 212.44 30.00 242.44 2511921320087 7136 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1141 212154000506 HOWARD CALVIN S Y 322.87 30.00 352.87 2511921330035 7006 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1139 212154000506 MARY CALVIN 2 Y 2511921330035 7006 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1139 212165000206 DAVID FIEDLER S Y 295.86 30.00 325.86 2511921320088 7049 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1106 212188000504 JOHN A LITZAU S Y 325.44 30.00 355.44 2511921320109 7218 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1109 212193000804 NANCY BOYCE S Y 243.53 30.00 273.53 2511921320093 7048 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1107 212228000702 ROBERT JANSEN S Y 258.02 30.00 288.02 2511921320104 7201 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1215 212246010404 STEPHEN DUBOIS S N 282.32 30.00 312.32 2511921310095 1013 73RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55444 -2650 212246010404 STEPHEN DUBOIS B Y 2511921310095 20143 STATE HYW 28 GLENWOOD MN 56334 -4138 212262000406 KONMOHN GBADYU S Y 282.47 30.00 312.47 2511921310078 730 72ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1201 212262000406 SAM MCINTOSH 2 Y 2511921310078 730 72ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1201 212268000803 DONALD R HEATH S Y 267.66 30.00 297.66 2511921310011 824 WOODBINE LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1220 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 12 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 212272000204 ROBERT HUGHES S Y 310.32 30.00 340.32 2511921310020 918 WOODBINE LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1222 212275000903 LEANDER ROBERTS S Y 250.37 30.00 280.37 2511921310017 1012 WOODBINE LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1224 212290000002 DAVID BERHANU S Y 274.80 30.00 304.80 2511921310075 731 WOODBINE LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1217 212301000704 KEVIN J O'HARA S Y 244.40 30.00 274.40 2511921310040 7212 ALDRICH CT BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1206 212345000504 OSCAR 0 CASTRO ZAYAS S Y 83.82 30.00 113.82 2511921340012 865 70TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1251 215003000104 DIVADA WILSON S N 54.51 30.00 84.51 2511921430039 6926 WEST RIVER RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1328 215003000104 MARK PIVEC B Y 2511921430039 3149 IDAHO AVE N CRYSTAL MN 55427 -2930 215046000001 EUGENE T BARRY S Y 323.42 30.00 353.42 2511921420017 7119 DALLAS RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1313 215591000905 HELEN PELTIER S Y 88.03 30.00 118.03 3611921140004 6506 WILLOW LA N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1637 215624000002 EAST BROOK ESTATES S N 196.79 30.00 226.79 3611921120031 421 69TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1616 215624000002 EAST BROOK ESTATES B Y 3611921120031 7224 #240 CAMDEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1239 215670080503 BETTY MCBROOM S Y 146.76 30.00 176.76 3611921130093 6628 CAMDEN DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1631 215775000703 NOLA MCCOY S N 324.81 30.00 354.81 3611921210040 6718 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1516 CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 13 of 42 ACCOUNT -NUMBE NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 215775000703 KENNETH FOUNTAIN B Y 324.81 30.00 354.81 3611921210040 10932 FOX HOLLOW LA N CHAMPLIN MN 55316 -3037 215776000607 LESLIE WILLIAMS S N 229.86 30.00 259.86 3611921210041 6712 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1516 215776000607 ANTHONY HINES B Y 3611921210041 4604 GALAXIE POINT EAGAN MN 55122 215799000902 JOHN ODEGAARD S Y 268.13 30.00 298.13 3611921210114 811 69TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1623 215803000306 CHRIS MCNUTT S Y 92.42 30.00 122.42 3611921210007 6824 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1514 215803000306 JILL MCNUTT 2 Y 3611921210007 6824 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1514 215820000202 KATHY WILLIAMS S Y 101.85 30.00 131.85 3611921240013 811 67TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1652 215930000904 DOUGLAS MOORE S Y 460.04 30.00 490.04 3611921210056 6724 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1520 215941000602 RICHARD OLDENBURG S Y 227.29 30.00 257.29 3611921240039 6606 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1808 215970000003 DANIEL REUBEN S Y 71.02 30.00 101.02 3611921220003 6837 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1521 215976000407 SALIMATU BUTLER S Y 100.56 30.00 130.56 3611921220022 6818 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1526 216011000903 JESTIN STEINBACH S Y 244.09 30.00 274.09 3611921220029 6831 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1525 216017100105 LUANNE ANDERSON S Y 251.82 30.00 281.82 3611921220119 1339 67TH LN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1587 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 14 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 216018020004 GREGORY A TOROK S Y 200.57 30.00 230.57 3611921220063 1309 68TH LN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1586 216018080402 M. REVARD S Y 195.06 30.00 225.06 3611921220097 1333 68TH LN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1589 216018110910 AKONYO ACHAW S N 48.39 30.00 78.39 3611921220100 1345 68TH IN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1589 216018110910 AKONYO ACHAW F Y 3611921220100 15783 NEON ST NW RAMSEY MN 55303 216018110910 OMAR OJULU C Y 3611921220100 1345 68TH LA N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 216018160409 LISA VITA S Y 228.77 30.00 258.77 3611921220090 1328 68TH LN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1584 216018180207 BIBI MCFEELY S N 214.47 30.00 244.47 3611921220060 1320 68TH LN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1584 216018180207 BIBI MCFEELY B Y 3611921220060 7820 309 ZANE AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 -3031 216018190109 TONISHA POINTER S N 297.44 30.00 327.44 3611921220059 1316 68TH LN N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1584 216018190109 VALERIE BLOUNT MCKISSACK B Y 3611921220059 3617 DOUGLAS DR CRYSTAL MN 55422 -1928 216019100903 TONYA MORRIS S N 213.35 30.00 243.35 3611921220077 6804 FREMONT PL N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1590 216019100903 DWIGHT BUCKMEIR B Y 3611921220077 7708 KENTUCKY AVE NO BROOKLYN PARK MN 55445 -2746 216101000002 TIMOTHY FRANKLIN S Y 224.45 30.00 254.45 3611921210079 6718 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1512 I CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 4 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 15 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBERz NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 216113000605 SHAWN BAKER S Y 229.96 30.00 259.96 3611921210096 6700 ALDRICH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1626 216113000605 MELANIE BAKER 2 Y 3611921210096 6700 ALDRICH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1626 301716000704 BENNIE KYLES S Y 124.61 30.00 154.61 3311921430031 5301 62ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2361 301723000802 SUSAN PODGORAK S Y 267.69 30.00 297.69 3311921430070 5212 62ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2360 301838000002 EXODUS COMM DEV CORP S Y 299.25 30.00 329.25 3311921440010 4801 63RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2339 301888000905 SCHELLINA HUGHES S Y 219.05 30.00 249.05 3311921130077 6601 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1635 301905000802 CHARLES E TURNER S Y 84.80 30.00 114.80 3311921130060 5124 HOWE LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -.1628 301972000605 EVELYN KOLLIE S Y 185.43 30.00 215.43 3311921140018 5013 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1613 301987000903 JED RANCOUR S Y 248.89 30.00 278.89 3311921130014 6524 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2075 302010000802 PAUL MCCORMICK S Y 243.87 30.00 273.87, 3311921130031 5119 WINCHESTER LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1640 302042000002 MALLOY JEANNE S Y 210.19 30.00 240.19 3311921140036 4906 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2007 302055000403 GARY DAVIS S Y 134.87 30.00 164.87 3311921410071 6407 PERRY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2063 302055000403 TONYA DAVIS 2 Y 3311921410071 6407 PERRY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2063 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 16 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 302188000403 BEVERLY KILLEBREW S Y 294.26 30.00 324.26 3311921420079 5318 ELEANOR LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2023 302201000703 ABED WAZWAZ S Y 229.77 30.00 259.77 3311921420115 6318 UNITY AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2039 302238000402 SOLOMON BUTLER S Y 255.73 30.00 285.73 3311921410032 6437 ORCHARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2059 302238000402 DONYALE BUTLER 2 Y 3311921410032 6437 ORCHARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2059 302250000701 WILLIAM A HILL S Y 409.99 30.00 439.99 3311921410044 6313 ORCHARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2057 302252000502 TIMOTHY CAMPBELL S Y 141.58 30.00 171.58 3311921410046 6301 ORCHARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2057 302269000603 AYESHA BOBRAY S Y 65.94 30.00 95.94 3311921410001 6443 NOBLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2055 302269000603 SYLVESTER BOBRAY 2 Y 3311921410001 6443 NOBLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2055 302274000903 ERICK BATES S Y 217.75 30.00 247.75 3311921410006 6413 NOBLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2055 302276000706 NANCY MURCK S Y 143.15 30.00 173.15 3311921410008 6401 NOBLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2055 302300000702 JAMES CAPLES S Y 221.78 30.00 251.78 3411921320024 6401 MAJOR AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2134 302312000305 CHARLES HARGROVE S Y 308.64 30.00 338.64 3411921320014 6424 MAJOR AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2135 302312000305 ROSA HARGROVE 2 Y 3411921320014 6424 MAJOR AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2135 CURRENT CERTIF ION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 17 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER AME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 302322000102 JOSEPH SCHORN S Y 231.10 30.00 261.10 3411921320008 6401 LEE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2132 302426000603 ROMEO GONG S Y 106.43 30.00 136.43 3411921330051 6207 LEE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2477 302426000603 EVELYN GONO 2 Y 3411921330051 6207 LEE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2477 302429000302 MOLINNA PHOMPHACKDY S Y 94.85 30.00 124.85 3411921330054 6137 LEE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2475 302548000902 CHRISTINE BROWN S Y 221.98 30.00 251.98 3411921330037 6224 LEE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2478 302562000002 J K CARROLL S Y 247.27 30.00 277.27 3411921320118 6412 LEE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2133 302562000002 JERALDINE K CARROLL 0 Y 3411921320118 5113 WINCHESTER BROOKYN CENTER MN 55429 -1640 302581000705 GILFORD SUNDEEN S Y 281.84 30.00 311.84 3411921320081 6313 KYLE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2128 302670000903 WUILBERTH J CIPRIANO RAMIREZ S Y 97.05 30.00 127.05 0311821210114 4100 61ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2418 302678000103 R J COFER S Y 212.69 30.00 242.69 0311821210105 3618 61ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2402 302678000103 PAUL M RODGERS 2 Y 0311821210105 3818 61ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2402 302719000206 GABRIEL SAYEE S Y 215.25 30.00 245.25 3411921340017 6121 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -4042 302752000006 ROBERT JOHNSON S Y 519.61 30.00 549.61 3411921340056 3806 62ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -4022 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 18 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 302802000002 ROBERT BOLDEN S Y 264.63 30.00 294.63 3411921340115 4201 63RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2144 302802000002 NAOMI LAWSON B Y 3411921340115 4201 63RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2144 302820000802 NICOLINE CHOMILO S Y 135.70 30.00 165.70 3411921310062 6436 JUNE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2127 302830000608 ORLANDO CAMPIS S Y 243.67 30.00 273.67 3411921310040 6343 INDIANA AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2120 302837000902 JAMES HESTER S Y 162. -37 30.00 192.37 3411921310047 6301 INDIANA AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2120 302850000104 KENNETH OLSON S Y 243.41 30.00 273.41 3411921310089 6430 MARLIN DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2163 302878000902 MARY T JOHNSON S Y 274.69 30.00 304.69 3411921230065 4306 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2108 302880000502 ARISTOTL TRINITY S Y 339.09 30.00 369.09 3411921230063 4318 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2108 302880000502 YOLANDA TRINITY 2 Y 3411921230063 4318 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2108 302887000804 CHARITY ROBINSON S Y 273.66 30.00 303.66 3411921230080 4512 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2112 302887000804 MYRON ROBINSON 2 Y 3411921230080 4512 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2112 302916000305 BRENDA WHITSON S Y 116.11 30.00 146.11 3411921230056 4407 WINCHESTER LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1723 302934000101 ROBERT BUSHEY S Y 195.62 30.00 225.62 3411921240038 4218 WINCHESTER LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1720 CURRENT CERTIFI TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 19 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBEANAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 302943000002 JUDITH RAMIREZ S N 414.38 30.00 444.38 3411921230034 4500 WINCHESTER LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1726 302943000002 HECTOR J ALVARADO B Y 3411921230034 4575 #104 NATHAN LANE PLYMOUTH MN 55442 -3193 303006000205 SUNRISE APTS LLC S N 2378.54 30.00 2408.54 3411921310081 3911 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2177 303006000205 SUNRISE APTS LLC B Y 3411921310081 PO BOX 270311 VADNAIS HEIGHTS MN 55127 -0311 303007000105 SUNRISE APARTMENT LL C S N 2780.95 30.00 2810.95 3411921310081 3907 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2175 303007000105 SUNRISE APARTMENT LL C B Y 3411921310081 PO BOX 270311 VADNAIS HEIGHTS MN 55127 -0311 303008000005 SUNRISE APT LLC S N 2405.49 30.00 2435.49 3411921310081 3909 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2176 303008000005 SUNRISE APT LLC B Y 3411921310081 PO BOX 270311 VADNAIS HEIGHTS MN 55127 -0311 303058010803 MARILYN TOUSSAINT S Y 68.51 30.00 98.51 3411921130085 6612 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1853 303102000505 DUANE G WEAVER S Y 461.19 30.00 491.19 3411921130013 3408 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1810 303107000004 CYNTHIA HAIR S N 311.80 30.00 341.80 3411921130071 6518 CHOWEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1843 303107000004 KEMIN TRUST B Y 3411921130071 3300 CTY RD 10 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3072 303144000504 EDITH ZEAH S N 265.60 30.00 295.60 3411921310004 6349 HALIFAX DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2118 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 20 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 303144000504 EDITH ZEAH B Y 265.60 30.00 295.60 3411921310004 1118 42 1/2 AVE NE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MN 55421 303163000104 JODEEN PERRIN S Y 78.57 30.00 108.57 3411921310023 6306 GRIMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2117 303178000406 SHAWN DIXON S Y 185.52 30.00 215.52 3411921420004 6325 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2173 303182000801 M DONALD BLOM S Y 149.61 30.00 179.61 3411921420007 6301 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2173 408669000704 SANDRA L REVAK S Y 312.17 30.00 342.17 0211821140018 5840 KNOX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2650 408694000603 WILLIAM STAGE S Y 286.25 30.00 316.25 0211821140050 5806 JAMES "AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2648 408714000202 LYNDA DUNCAN S Y 238.80 30.00 268.80 0211821140078 5707 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2641 408723000101 HAZEL VOLLUM S Y 161.65 30.00 191.65 0211821140068 5800 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2644 408765000006 DARCY IVERSON S Y 410.64 30.00 440.64 0111821220085 6000 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2640 408785000602 RAY WARREN S Y 307.20 30.00 337.20 0111821220073 6026 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2634 408846000302 YVETTE DAVIS S N 71.60 30.00 101.60 0111821230034 5730 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2659 408846000302 MYRTLE HALL B Y 0111821230034 P 0 BOX 34674 MEMPHIS TN 38184 -0674 408887000303 C HAYES S Y 165.90 30.00 195.90 3611921330017 1112 62ND AVE N 0 ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2209 CURRENT CERTIFI TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 21 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBEANAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 408890000802 JAMES THOMAS III S Y 225.68 30.00 255.68 3611921330032 6131 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2234 408911000302 BEATRICE WILLIAMS S Y 208.21 30.00 238.21 0111821220023 5903 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2622 408919000502 JOSEPH MANLEY S N 274.60 30.00 304.60 0111821230029 5743 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2656 408919000502 GREG KOSCH B Y 0111821230029 585 GLENWOOD AVE BIG LAKE MN 55309 -9416 408928000403 WAYNE THOMPSON S Y 269.01 30.00 299.01 0111821230028 5712 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2657 408941000703 DOUGLAS KALTVED S Y 250.18 30.00 280.18 0111821220010 5910 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2623 408941000703 MARIT KALTVED 2 Y 0111821220010 5910 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2623 408949000906 MARLEN MALDONADO S Y 105.91 30.00 135.91 0111821220039 6006 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2625 408957000802 CRANSTON ROLLINS S Y 319.76 30.00 349.76 3611921330026 6106 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2235 408963000005 LARRY SCHULTZ S Y 272.29 30.00 302.29 3611921330020 6125 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2227 408989000006 MELISSA TUMMEL S Y 255.86 30.00 285.86 0111821230096 5807 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2745 409002000104 JOSEPH SPINDLER S Y 264.67 30.00 294.67 0111821240055 5740 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2762 409002000104 DION PROPERTIES B Y 0111821240055 4088 TOLEDO AVE S ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 -2903 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 22 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 409006000703 KIMBERLY LACHAPELLE S Y 349.56 30.00 379.56 0111821240026 5808 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2746 409010000102 CHRIS BATEMAN S Y 276.03 30.00 306.03 0111821240030 5840 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2746 409061000906 ERROL F EDWARDS S Y 121.74 30.00 151.74 0111821210016 6007 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2738 409073000503 DOUG FINSETH S Y 304.65 30.00 334.65 0111821240019 5841 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2734 409077000103 THOMAS BORGEN S Y 256.01 30.00 286.01 0111821240023 5809 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2734 409110000003 JOHN CUMMINGS S Y 296.52 30.00 326.52 3611921340023 6106 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2224 409110000003 STAR CUMMINGS 2 Y 3611921340023 6106 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2224 409140000403 VICTOR WILLIAMS S Y 249.98 30.00 279.98 0111821210094 6029 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2725 409162000705 JOHN E KELLEY S Y 242.79 30.00 272.79 0111821240049 5759 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2757 409182000301 PHIL OSTERBAUER S Y 206.72 30.00 236.72 0111821240083 5800 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2722 409209000202 BILL KOLBE S Y 215.97 30.00 245.97 3611921340012 6114 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2215 409397000406 RENEE KLICK S Y 301.87 30.00 331.87 0111821120031 6023 LYNDALE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2743 409403000604 TONY CARLSON S Y 110.91 30.00 140.91 0111821120012 5945 LYNDALE AVE N •BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2741 i CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 23 of 42 ACCOUNT -NUMBE NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 409403000604 SARA STECH 2 Y 110.91 30.00 140.91 0111821120012 5945 LYNDALE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2741 409435000806 JASON WELLES S Y 93.86 30.00 123.86 0111821240066 816 57TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2703 409950000303 RICKY J ARTZ S Y 252.27 30.00 282.27 3611921320026 6407 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1827 409950000303 TONYA HEARD 2 Y 3611921320026 6407 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1827 409953000003 STEVEN CUNNINGHAM S Y 258.50 30.00 288.50 3611921320009 6337 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1825 409989000804 CHONG XIONG S Y 217.55 30.00 247.55 3611921310032 1001 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1812 410015000402 SAUTARRE BZNMINA S Y 151.95 30.00 181.95 3611921310022 6435 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1802 410090000201 CROWN BRAWLEY LLC S N 828.72 30.00 858.72 3611921130119 615 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1644 410090000201 CROWN BRAWLEY LLC B Y 3611921130119 1776 MAPLE LANE ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -1426 410093010802 CROWN BRAWLEY LLC S N 833.31 30.00 863.31 3611921420020 6330 CAMDEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1965 410093010802 CROWN BRAWLEY LLC 0 Y 3611921420020 1776 MAPLE LANE ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -1426 410107000302 PATT A ROGICH S Y 157.99 30.00 187.99 3611921330070 1231 63RD LA N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1864 410114000407 SABRINA YOUNGE S Y 112.16 30.00 142.16 3611921330077 1319 63RD LA N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -1865 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14- MAR 2005 (13:59) page 24 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 410804000903 PAUL DEAN S Y 729.95 30.00 759.95 0211821310049 2545 CO RD NO 10 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2501 503207000403 LONNIE RICKHEIM S Y 245.43 30.00 275.43 3411921140044 3118 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1804 503211000802 JOSH ROEHL S Y 237.16 30.00 267.16 3411921140040 3018 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1802 503221000602 PHILIP JUDGE JR S Y 266.43 30.00 296.43 3411921140058 3113 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1803 503221000602 HOLLIE JUDGE 2 Y 3411921140058 3113 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1803 503230000502 OCONNOR S Y 243.00 30.00 273.00 3411921140067 3319 66TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -1807 I 503234000105 DAVID GLAUVITZ S Y 256.54 30.00 286.54 3411921140071 3300 QUARLES RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2254 503235000004 RYAN WALKER S N 291.29 30.00 321.29 3411921140072 3218 QUARLES RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2252 503235000004 HUD #271 853114 B Y 3411921140072 501 #1200 MARQUETTE AVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 503249000403 ROBERT W STRAUCH S Y 186.05 30.00 216.05 3411921410126 3013 QUARLES RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2247 503249000403 LISA STRAUCH 2 Y 3411921410126 3013 QUARLES RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2247 503251000903 JD &JW JOHNSON S Y 261.81 30.00 291.81 3411921140084 3025 QUARLES RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2247 503258000204 DAVID SERIER S Y 128.48 30.00 158.48 3411921140091 3213 QUARLES RD 0 ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2251 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 25 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBEI&AME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 503274000204 PENNY HICKS S Y 271.47 30.00 301.47 3411921410102 3112 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429-2243 503365000207 ALBERT D COOKE S Y 82.95 30.00 112.95 3411921410069 3313 POE RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2230 503373000205 MICHAEL TORREY -WHITE S Y 136.89 30.00 166.89 3411921410091 3219 OHENRY RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2224 503373000205 KIMBERLY TORREY -WHITE 2 Y 3411921410091 3219 OHENRY RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2224 503434000906 DALE CERNOHLAVEK S Y 106.71 30.00 136.71 3511921320082 2700 OHENRY RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2040 503445000606 CYNTHIA MEIER S Y 258.79 30.00 288.79 3511921320062 2801 64TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2010 503450000803 NEW OWNER S Y 134.45 30.00 164.45 3511921320067 2907 64TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2012 503482000005 BRIDGID MAGEL S Y 306.53 30.00 336.53 3511921320030 2813 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2018 503490000001 HENRY R SCHWARTZ S Y 133.23 30.00 163.23 3511921320017 2906 65TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2021 503577000605 RENEE T PETERSON S Y 262.43 30.00 292.43 3411921440078 3119 62ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2614 503591000805 ORETTA MOORE S Y 199.06 30.00 229.06 3411921430036 3507 62ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2622 503604000306 GARY EIDEM S Y 206.48 30.00 236.48 3411921440065 3206 62ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2617 503630000104 ROSE ALEXANDER S N 302.69 30.00 332.69 3411921440032 3318 MUMFORD RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2658 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 26 of 42 ACCOUNT-NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 503630000104 OLUFEMI OLAGVAJU B Y 302.69 30.00 332.69 3411921440032 6225 NOBLE AVE NO BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2483 503699000901 THELBERT WILKERSON S Y 341.08 30.00 371.08 3411921440006 3107 63RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2203 503741000705 LELER STEVENSON S Y 276.59 30.00 306.59 3511921330020 2807 63RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2002 503833000602 OLIVER SPRAGGINS S Y 157.81 30.00 187.81 0311821110005 3300 61ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2611 503833000602 BRENDA SPRAGGINS 2 Y 0311821110005 3300 61ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2611 503838000105 FOLUSO FAMUYIDE S Y 339.46 30.00 369.46 0311821110010 3118 GIST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2607 503842000502 CHRISTOPHER P FAHEY S Y 374.76 30.00 404.76 0311821110014 3018 61ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2605 503842000502 JULIA A FAHEY 2 Y 0311821110014 3018 61ST AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2605 503876000405 RAYMOND BROWN S Y 298.57 30.00 328.57 0211821230002 5836 VINCENT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2411 503879000102 TERRY DOONAN S Y 267.25 30.00 297.25 0211821220043 5901 VINCENT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2303 503934000404 DEB TALATALA S Y 275.98 30.00 305.98 0311821110117 5913 XERXES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2311 503934000404 GENE TALATALA 2 Y 0311821110117 5913 XERXES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2311 503949000703 PHENG CHANG S Y 111.77 30.00 141.77 0311821110045 6006 YORK AVE N 0 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2643 CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 27 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBERNAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 503965000604 JOHN P CLOUTIER S Y 112.27 30.00 142.27 0311821110100 5907 YORK AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2640 503996000901 PAMELA ARNESON S Y 312.66 30.00 342.66 0311821110083 5901 ZENITH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2646 504056000402 DON THAYER S Y 219.68 30.00 249.68 0311821140016 3315 59TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2603 504078000805 JERI PRINCE S Y 218.42 30.00 248.42 0311821130027 5815 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2509 504120000607 BETHANY PALLAS S Y 135.30 30.00 165.30 0311821120022 6006 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2516 504120000607 TIMOTHY SCHULTZ 2 Y 0311821120022 6006 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2516 504269000704 CARLOS LEON S Y 376.57 30.00 406.57 0311821130037 5815 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2511 504279000502 WANONA RUFF S Y 288.83 30.00 318.83 0311821130087 5842 ADMIRAL LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2525 504279000502 CANDIE KEETH 2 Y 0311821130087 5842 ADMIRAL LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2525 504279000502 WANONA RUFF B Y 0311821130087 1302 23RD AVE NE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55418 504282000004 JASON LEE S Y 264.13 30.00 294.13 0311821120048 5912 ADMIRAL LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2527 504287000502 FETHI MOHAMMED S Y 297.80 30.00 327.80 0311821240102 5813 HALIFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2431 504289000303 CHRISTOPHER LARSON S N 252.88 30.00 282.88 0311821240100 5825 HALIFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2431 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 28 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 504289000303 CHRISTOPHER LARSON B Y 252.88 30.00 282.88 0311821240100 3151 BOBCAT TRAIL PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 -4507 504293000704 JAMES ARRINGTON S Y 305.35 30.00 335.35 0311821210077 5901 HALIFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2433 504347000301 DOLORES M ROBECK S Y 160.01 30.00 190.01 0311821210098 6000 JUNE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2464 504368000702 MATTHEW BENNEWISE S Y 237.86 30.00 267.86 0311821230014 5831 JUNE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2421 504383000802 JOHN NICKELL S Y 213.30 30.00 243.30 0311821220008 6019 JUNE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2463 504383000802 BARBARA NICKELL 2 Y 0311821220008 6019 JUNE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 504425000802 JOANN GILBAUGH S Y 254.46 30.00 284.46 0311821130008 5717 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3057 504439000203 KEVIN MEYERS S Y 203.91 30.00 233.91 0311821130078 5731 NORTHPORT DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3018 504439000203 NATALIE MEYERS -MARR 2 Y 0311821130078 5731 NORTHPORT DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3018 504450000608 SHAWN M BROWN S Y 346.20 30.00 376.20 0311821130071 5737 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3012 504510000404 JOHN ROLAND S Y 218.01 30.00 248.01 0311821310041 3901 BURQUEST LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3030 504511000303 MALCOLM T VINGER S Y 110.99 30.00 140.99 0311821310042 3907 BURQUEST LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3030 504524000803 MARTY LANDSEM S Y 256.77 30.00 286.77 0311821310055 3807 56TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3020 I CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 29 of 42 ACCOUNT-] NAME/ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PIA 504599000802 VALERIE EDWARDS S N 288.23 30.00 318.23 0311821430086 3613 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3309 504599000802 MUHE TAHIRO B Y 0311821430086 1610 FORD PKWY ST PAUL MN 55116 -2134 504606000903 JOHN R GORDON S Y 180.77 30.00 210.77 0311821340012 5345 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3313 504606000903 NATALIE NORDANG 2 Y 0311821340012 5345 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 504609010502 JOHN RITTER S Y 93.03 30.00 123.03 0311821440003 5459 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3359 504615000803 RESIDENT S N 185.99 30.00 215.99 0311821430041 5406 SAILOR LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3322 504615000803 LEXY INT INC F Y 0311821430041 7421 GENSMER CIR PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 -9125 504615000803 LEON PERRY C Y 0311821430041 5406 SAILOR LA N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 504639000002 RESIDENT S Y 226.02 30.00 256.02 0311821430013 5349 SAILOR LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3319 504642000504 STEVEN R FORCE S Y 361.72 30.00 391.72 0311821430036 5336 SAILOR LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429-3320 504672000802 CHERYLE WILSON S Y 348.98 30.00 378.98 0311821430050 5301 NORTHPORT DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3371 504720000002 JEAN LIVINGSTON S Y 117.84 30.00 147.84 0311821420016 5649 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3055 504721000901 ROBERT BATTA S Y 172.04 30.00 202.04 0311821420017 5655 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3055 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 30 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME/ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 504761178404 LYO SPA S N 109.67 30.00 139.67 0211821320013 1271 #65A BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2803 504761178404 LLC TALISMAN BROOKDALE O Y 0211821320013 1108 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKDALE MN 55430 -2802 504761290704 PERFUME GALLERIA S N 198.74 30.00 228.74 0211821320013 1285 72A BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2803 504761290704 LLC TALISMAN BROOKDALE B Y 0211821320013 1108 BROOKLDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2802 504762050406 ETC,ETC,ETC S N 0211821320013 1120 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2802 504762050406 LLC TALISMAN BROOKDALE O Y 0211821320013 1108 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2802 504764910704 MOLLY'S CREAMERY S N 224.10 30.00 254.10 0211821320008 1184 177 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2802 504764910704 LLC TALISMAN BROOKDALE 0 Y 0211821320008 1108 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKYN CENTER MN 55430 -2802 504815000605 ESTER PATRICK S N 279.23 30.00 309.23 0311821240002 5731 HALIFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3049 504815000605 AMERIQUEST MTG F Y 0311821240002 505 S MAIN S 6000 ORANGE CA 92868 504818000302 JEFFREY L DELZER S Y 227.82 30.00 257.82 0311821240012 4019 58TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3043 504841000402 CRAIG LOUISELLE S Y 277.21 30.00 307.21 0311821240011 5736 JUNE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -2908 606054010803 JAMES SHOULTZ S Y 124.49 30.00 154.49 1011821320007 4210 LAKESIDE AVE �ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3805 CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 31 of 42 ACCOUNT -NUMBS *NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 606054020705 JAMES SHOULTZ S N 94.85 30.00 124.85 1011821320007 4214 LAKESIDE AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3805 606054020705 JAMES SHOULTZ 0 Y 1011821320007 4210 LAKESIDE AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3805 606083000409 LUCY ZAKIEL S Y 78.99 30.00 108.99 1011821320008 4104 LAKESIDE AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3803 606083000409 PETER ZAKIEL 2 Y 1011821320008 4104 LAKESIDE AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3803 606086000103 ELIZABETH COLLINS S Y 509.09 30.00 539.09 1011821320002 4100 LAKESIDE AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3803 606374000202 TODD E SOLOM S Y 511.05 30.00 541.05 1011821310005 4629 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55422 -1335 606414000402 L SETHER S Y 243.50 30.00 273.50 1011821120055 5100 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3334 606414000402 LORRAINE POPPENHAGEN C Y 1011821120055 5100 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3334 606434000003 STEVE KURVERS S Y 369.20 30.00 399.20 1011821120017 5221 DREW AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3335 606473000208 MELINDA EMMERT S Y 362.26 30.00 392.26 1011821120023 5214 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3340 606477000805 KHANDY VONGXAY S Y 57.62 30.00 87.62 1011821120026 5240 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3340 606495000607 WILLIAM KRIER S Y 378.98 30.00 408.98 1011821120073 5125 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3337 606498000304 GEORGE ENGLES S Y 315.91 30.00 345.91 1011821120076 5107 EWING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3337 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 32 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 606516000102 TIMOTHY MCKELVEY S Y 373.00 30.00 403.00 1011821120078 5048 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3919 606522000303 SCOTT ZAPZALKA S Y 637.75 30.00 667.75 1011821120084 5136 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3342 606522000303 LISA ZAPZALKA 2 Y 1011821120084 5136 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 606550000802 JAMES COTTINGHAM S Y 103.65 30.00 133.65 1011821210022 5244 GREAT VIEW AVE BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3346 606564000207 BRIAN SOMKHAN S Y 166.55 30.00 196.55 1011821210033 5256 TWIN LAKE BLVD E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3374 606722000103 KAREN RODRIGUEZ S Y 377.82 30.00 407.82 1011821210068 5107 FRANCE AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3341 606733000803 MAUREEN WARD S Y 170.28 30.00 200.28 1011821210057 5120 TWIN LAKE BLVD E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3351 606740000902 LYNN DORMOND S Y 153.18 30.00 183.18 1011821210052 3901 52ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3328 606740000902 ADRIAN DORMOND 2 Y 1011821210052 3901 52ND AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3328 606876000502 DELORES RILEY S Y 220.11 30.00 250.11 1011821140069 5017 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3402 606910000301 RANDY J LANHART S Y 374.63 30.00 404.63 1011821130022 4907 BEARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3944 606920000106 KEVIN U BOYD S Y 354.83 30.00 384.83 1011821140053 3307 49TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3904 606921000005 MARLON WILLIAMS S Y 233.81 30.00 263.81 1011821140052 3301 49TH AVE N 0 ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3904 CURRENT CERTIF ION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 33 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBERSNAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROEND CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 606950000404 BARBARA BRUDER S Y 344.50 30.00 374.50 1011821140024 4920 ZENITH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3926 606957000704 VINCENT ANTONELLI S Y 137.59 30.00 167.59 1011821140032 4929 ZENITH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3925 606973000702 ROB VAN HOUSEN S Y 150.99 30.00 180.99 1011821140045 4949 ABBOTT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3943 606987000104 ROBERT D WESTBURY S Y 299.83 30.00 329.83 1011821140002 5030 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 -3403 607014005503 LEROY M NELSON S N 86.96 30.00 116.96 1011821110021 5101 XERXES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3324 607014005503 LEROY M NELSON B Y 1011821110021 796 LAKEVIEW AVE ST PAUL MN 55117 -4022 607106000502 KEVIN GOFF S Y 423.46 30.00 453.46 0311821440024 3006 53RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3308 607106000502 JENNIFER GOFF 2 Y 0311821440024 3006 53RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3308 607130000502 BOUASAVANH PHEUMAVONG S Y 715.29 30.00 745.29 0211821340030 5405 PENN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2943 607130000502 INTA PHONGVIXAY 2 Y 0211821340030 5405 PENN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2943 607164000408 FRED YARWEH S Y 200.41 30.00 230.41 0211821340011 2330 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2938 607183000103 KORPO CISCO S Y 163.52 30.00 193.52 0211821430002 5300 PENN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2942 607183000103 GEORGE CISCO 2 Y 0211821430002 5300 PENN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2942 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 34 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 607193000903 MARY BETH DAVIDSON S Y 219.08 30.00 249.08 0211821430127 2206 54TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3006 607231000304 LAWRENCE HECK S Y 419.74 30.00 449.74 0211821430028 5306 OLIVER AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3031 607236000807 VERN RECK S Y 396.68 30.00 426.68 0211821430019 5319 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3028 607240000202 LAURA RUPP S Y 417.57 30.00 447.57 0211821430107 5345 NEWTON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3028 607257000204 JACK BONIFACE S Y 357.10 30.00 387.10 0211821430060 5331 MORGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3024 607267000003 STEVE DYE S Y 268.79 30.00 298.79 0211821430077 2006 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3011 607267000003 KARLA DYE 2 Y 0211821430077 2006 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3011 607280000308 RONALD EDBERG S Y 334.20 30.00 364.20 0211821430055 5332 MORGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3025 607291000003 SCOTT RATH S Y 114.42 30.00 144.42 0211821430044 5317 LOGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3020 607326000907 ROBERT TABAKA S Y 371.53 30.00 401.53 0211821440067 5311 KNOX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3057 607326000907 DEBORAH TABAKA 2 Y 0211821440067 5311 KNOX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3057 607368000802 SCOTT VINCENT S Y 309.78 30.00 339.78 0211821440097 5345 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3049 607368000802 RHONDA VINCENT 2 Y 0211821440097 5345 JAMES AVE N 0 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 0 CURRENT CERTIFI TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 35 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBE*NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 607379000504 KYLE STENSRUD S Y 110.57 30.00 140.57 0211821440121 5436 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3052 607401000703 AMOS RETIC S Y 260.18 30.00 290.18 0211821440049 5329 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3047 607401000703 SANDRA BROOKS RETIC 2 Y 0211821440049 5329 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3047 607407000102 ERICA KOTTKE S Y 181.92 30.00 211.92 0211821440088 5407 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3070 607407000102 ERICA KOTTKE B Y 0211821440088 3033 NEVADA AVE S ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 607410000603 VICKIE SWEENEY S N 315.28 30.00 345.28 0211821440138 5425 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3070 607410000603 VICKIE SWEENEY F Y 0211821440138 5240 OLIVER AVE N MINNEAPOLIS MN 55430 607410000603 BRANDT PROPERTIES C Y 0211821440138 5735 S LINWOOD DR NE WYOMING MN 55092 607410000603 VICKIE SWEENEY F Y 0211821440138 10856 NORWAY ST NW COON RAPIDS MN 55448 607429000504 BRIAN WALKER S Y 368.02 30.00 398.02 0211821440040 5312 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3048 607453000402 TODD VANSLYKE S Y 411.24 30.00 441.24 0211821410002 5527 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3173 607453000402 DIANNE VANSLYKE 2 Y 0211821410002 5527 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3173 607455000205 CHARLES SKAUDIS S Y 251.17 30.00 281.17 0211821410009 5547 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3173 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 36 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 607455000205 STEPHANIE SKAUDIS 2 Y 251.17 30.00 281.17 0211821410009 5547 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3173 607467000804 ROBERT MIKULAK S Y 405.04 30.00 435.04 0211821410016 5624 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3075 607469000607 STACY L TJOENS S Y 379.31 30.00 409.31 0211821410018 5612 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3075 607471000204 WILLIAM BAILEY S Y 473.17 30.00 503.17 0211821410020 5600 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3075 607489000202 JEANINE DANIELS S Y 363.12 30.00 393.12 0211821410044 5601 IRVING AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3074 607512000304 GUILLERMO S CORRALES S Y 214.60 30.00 244.60 0211821410104 5525 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3053 607517000806 BERNADETTE ANDERSON S Y 551.55 30.00 581.55 0211821410059 5603 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3055 607523000008 JENNIFER DILLON -JONES S Y 355.73 30.00 385.73 0211821410053 5651 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3055 607523000008 CLANCY JONES 2 Y 0211821410053 5651 JAMES AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3055 607535000604 ALAN CANEFF S Y 427.32 30.00 457.32 0211821410113 5540 KNOX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3062 607573000904 BRUCE HOBBS S Y 205.97 30.00 235.97 0211821420014 5501 LOGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3065 607573000904 DONNA HOBBS 2 Y 0211821420014 5501 LOGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3065 I 607578000401 PETER MILINKOVICH S Y 405.53 30.00 435.53 0211821420009 5541 LOGAN AVE N 0 ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3065 i CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 37 of 42 ACCOUNT -NUMBE *NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 607584000606 FRANCISCO CAJINA S Y 76.58 30.00 106.58 0211821420005 5633 LOGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3067 607584000606 ROSA CACERES 2 `I 0211821420005 5633 LOGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3067 607620000203 RICK NESTEBY S Y 372.83 30.00 402.83 0211821420021 5548 MORGAN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2930 607640000804 RALLIE H RONDORF S Y 99.50 30.00 129.50 0211821420061 5506 OLIVER AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2932 607670000101 JASON CUNNINGHAM S Y 460.32 30.00 490.32 0211821310019 2406 ERICON DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2920 607670000101 ERIN CUNNINGHAM 2 Y 0211821310019 2406 ERICON DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2920 607675000602 KEVIN SMITH S Y 463.99 30.00 493.99 0211821310036 2306 ERICON DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2918 607687000202 MARK OSTEEN S Y 356.83 30.00 386.83 0211821420097 2012 ERICON DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2912 607692000502 MARCIO RODRIGUES S Y 117.22 30.00 147.22 0211821420053 2023 BROOKVIEW DR BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2903 607696000109 TAMMIE COSEY S N 239.05 30.00 269.05 0211821420093 5600 JUDY LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2926 607696000109 NITA MORLOCK B Y 0211821420093 5020 PAGE AVE NE ST MICHAEL MN 55376 -8951 607701000401 KATHRYN ENDICOTT S Y 98.26 30.00 128.26 0211821420088 5518 JUDY LA BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2924 607735000402 GLEN COLEMAN S Y 207.17 30.00 237.17 0211821310002 5631 HILLSVIEW RD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2921 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 38 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 607750000406 ERIC SEPPANEN S Y 115.66 30.00 145.66 0111821320077 5636 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3176 607772020605 SEAN WATKINS S Y 321.18 30.00 351.18 0111821320075 5547 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3167 607772020605 LUMARIE WATKINS 2 Y 0111821320075 5547 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3167 607774000601 GEORGE HAJDER S Y 37.71 30.00 67.71 0111821320051 5601 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3169 607774000601 JASON ANFINSON C Y 0111821320051 5601 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 607774000602 JASON ANFINSON S Y 194.40 30.00 224.40 0111821320051 5601 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3169 607775000502 DAVID MEAWAY S Y 316.93 30.00 346.93 0111821320050 5609 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3169 607786000202 DARYL GRAVES S Y 437.34 30.00 467.34 0111821320043 5646 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3170 607792000407 JOSEPH M THILL S Y 98.44 30.00 128.44 0111821320036 5546 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3168 I 607795000103 ANDERSON S Y 499.98 30.00 529.98 0111821320033 5524 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3168 607799000707 DONALD ADAMS S N 370.69 30.00 400.69 0111821320030 1300 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3117 607908000505 LISA YANKTON S Y 91.12 30.00 121.12 0111821320023 5615 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3163 607909000404 AMINA DIOURY S Y 248.44 30.00 278.44 0111821320022 5625 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3163 CURRENT CERTIFI TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 39 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBERRAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 607930000702 SARAH KENDEMA S Y 68.30 30.00 98.30 0111821320098 5504 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3162 607930000702 PRINCE KENDEMA 2 Y 0111821320098 5504 FREMONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3162 607954000805 LECESTER GLOVER S Y 216.58 30.00 246.58 0111821320017 5642 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3158 607956000604 DARNELL ROBETS S Y 536.80 30.00 566.80 0111821320015 5632 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3158 607980000604 JESSE SALAZAR S Y 432.21 30.00 462.21 0111821320004 5625 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3153 607980000604 PENNY SALAZAR 2 Y 0111821320004 5625 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3153 607997000706 CHELSEE FLORENCE S Y 62.08 30.00 92.08 0111821310079 5524 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3152 608032000206 LAURA COLLINS S N 45.26 30.00 75.26 0111821310117 910 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3120 608032000206 LAURA COLLINS F Y 0111821310117 6066 #118 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 608032000207 RESIDENT S Y 109.42 30.00 139.42 0111821310117 910 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3120 608039000505 MARK KAMMERER S Y 347.48 30.00 377.48 0111821310052 5541 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3143 608040000203 GREG BADER S Y 330.99 30.00 360.99 0111821310035 5603 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3145 608042000003 PHILIPH NYANGAI S Y 348.62 30.00 378.62 0111821310036 5615 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3145 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 40 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 608043000903 YOLANDA COX S N 663.19 30.00 693.19 0111821310037 5631 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3145 608043000903 YOLANDA COX B Y 0111821310037 P O BOX 2101 MPLS MN 55402 -0101 608067000007 JEFFREY MORRISON S Y 410.34 30.00 440.34 0111821310105. 5513 CAMDEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3246 608088000507 DONALD WARGO S Y 137.96 30.00 167.96 0111821310085 833 57TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2765 608100000902 THOMAS CHAPMAN S Y 290.72 30.00 320.72 0111821310108 5621 CAMDEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3203 608104000505 GERALD MELLESMOEN S Y 117.77 30.00 147.77 0111821310006 801 57TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -2702 608108000103 BRIAN ORCUTT S Y 127.14 30.00 157.14 0111821420031 5624 CAMDEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3204 608108000103 SARAH ORCUTT 2 Y 0111821420031 5624 CAMDEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3204 608229000503 GLENDA TELFORD S Y 528.21 30.00 558.21 0111821430091 5441 4TH ST N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3202 608229000503 SAMUEL KNOX 2 Y 0111821430091 5441 4TH ST N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3202 608240000003 WEHMAN STEPHANIE S Y 484.73 30.00 514.73 0111821430065 5323 4TH ST N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3226 608254000304 CHARLES WALL S Y 196.26 30.00 226.26 0111821430080 5334 CAMDEN AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3206 608310000502 DENNIS JOHNSON S Y 94.85 30.00 124.85 0111821340044 5432 BRYANT AVE N •BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3115 I I CURRENT CERTIF TION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 41 of 42 ACCOUNT- NUMBER�NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX REND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 608314010003 TURNING POINT INC S N 501.07 30.00 531.07 0111821340046 819 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3109 608314010003 TURNING POINT INC B Y 0111821340046 1500 GOLDEN VALLEY RD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55411 -3139 608314020902 TURNING POINT INC S N 269.91 30.00 299.91 0111821340046 821 55TH AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3109 608314020902 TURNING POINT INC B Y 0111821340046 1500 GOLDEN VALLEY RD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55411 -3139 608331000002 SHERITTA SCROGGINS S Y 325.91 30.00 355.91 0111821340078 5305 BRYANT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3112 608333000804 NOE JUAREZ HERNANDEZ S Y 129.66 30.00 159.66 0111821340082 904 53RD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3569 608344000504 CINDY GRANQUIST S Y 540.20 30.00 570.20 0111821340061 5406 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3124 608358000805 M D MOEN JR S Y 401.07 30.00 431.07 0111821340110 5439 COLFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3123 608394000402 FRANCIS OAKGROVE S Y 387.62 30.00 417.62 0111821330076 5441 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3127 608422000002 PAM KREUTER S Y 203.12 30.00 233.12 0111821330083 5404 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3132 608430000004 BARBARA PLOUMEN S Y 371.67 30.00 401.67 0111821330158 5456 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3132 608434000603 DUANE ENNINGA S Y 441.02 30.00 471.02 0111821330094 5435 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3131 608444000408 AMY BORGSTROM S Y 528.89 30.00 558.89 0111821330114 5339 EMERSON AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3129 CURRENT CERTIFICATION REPORT 14 -MAR -2005 (13:59) page 42 of 42 ACCOUNT NUMBER NAME /ADDRESS ADDRESS -TYPE TAX- ROLL- SEND -CD AMT -OPEN ADMIN- CHARGE ASSESSED -AMT PID 608519000402 JOSEPH GROVES S Y 391.66 30.00 421.66 0111821330023 5337 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3135 608520000105 ALISON WALK S Y 287.23 30.00 317.23 0111821330022 5333 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3135 608523000802 KAREN ZEIGLE S Y 373.62 30.00 403.62 0111821330019 5315 GIRARD AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3135 608536000301 CHARLES DIBBLE S Y 348.01 30.00 378.01 0111821330066 5422 HUMBOLDT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 -3172 419C 113128.56* 12570.00* 125698.56* I I I i II i i City Council Agenda Item No. Sb i City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community 0 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Hearings on Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Development of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls A series of two public hearings are scheduled on March 14, 2005. The first hearing is to order improvements and authorize development of plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements. The second hearing is to consider certification of proposed special assessments for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14. All potentially affected property owners have been notified by certified mail of the date of the public hearings and the amount of the proposed special assessments. I. Explanation of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway, storm drainage, and utility improvements for the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive area, 69`" Avenue North and the Palmer Lake Pedestrian Trail. The project was previously established by the City Council on April 12, 2004 by Resolution 2004 52. On February 14, 2005 the City Council received the feasibility report and called for a public hearing for March 14, 2005 to consider these improvements. The feasibility report provides a description of the recommended improvements for the neighborhood and an estimated project budget. The proposed improvements can generally be described as follows: 1. Street Improvements including replacement of segments of deteriorated curb, sidewalk, pavement, center median, traffic signal loop detectors and pavement markings and construction of a right turn lane at the intersection of 69 Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway; and 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org 2. Storm Drainage Improvements including replacement of segments of storm sewer along Summit Drive, reconstruction of a storm sewer vault near City Hall and replacement of structure castings; and 3. Water Main Improvements including the replacement of various hydrants and rehabilitation of 16 -inch diameter water valves; and 4. Sanitary Sewer Main Improvements including replacement of segments of sanitary sewer pipes and access structures along Summit Drive; and 5. Trail Improvements including replacement of segments of the Palmer Lake bituminous pedestrian trail. II. Summary Explanation of Assessments Assuming the City Council orders the above described improvements and authorizes development of plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street and Storm Drainage Improvements, it is recommended that the City Council hold a second public hearing to consider certifying special assessments for said improvements to the Hennepin County tax rolls. It is proposed to levy special assessments for the improvements in accordance with the City's current Special Assessment Policy. An "A" zone of benefit was determined that includes that area of all properties abutting the street to be improved, extending to a depth of 200 feet or the property depth, whichever is less. A "B" zone of lesser benefit was also established to identify those properties or portions of properties which do not abut the improved roadway, but which accrue benefit. All of the properties in the project area have received assessment notices specifying these rates. The feasibility report included a preliminary assessment roll identifying 16 properties for special assessment of street and storm drainage special assessment. Public Comments Some property owners may choose to object to a special assessment; other property owners may choose to appeal an assessment. An objection is typically a concern expressed by the property owner about the amount of the assessment, or perhaps an assertion that they are not responsible for its payment. An appeal is a legal challenge to the assessment. Property owners must file with the City Clerk a written notice of objection before or at the public hearing, and then follow up with service of notice of appeal on the City and filing with district court. These types of disputes often require both parties to obtain appraisals and review and possibly negotiate assessments, and can lead to legal hearings. Should objections or appeals be filed with the Clerk prior to the public hearing, or should any person appear at the hearing and object to or appeal an assessment, it is recommended that the Council refer any substantive objections to staff for a report back to the Council at a continued hearing. An example might be an issue whereby staff would need to research the history of a particular complaint, and assemble documentation. The Council should consider removing the objected -to assessment from the proposed levy roll and adopting the remaining proposed assessments. If appeals are filed, staff and the City Attorney will advise the Council of options for handling the dispute and the litigation. Payment Options Available to Property Owners Once an assessment roll is adopted by the Council, the owner of each property has the following payment options`. 1. Pay the entire amount of the special assessment, without interest, between March 15 and September 30, 2005. 2. From October 1, 2005 to the end of the business day on November 29, 2005, the property owner may pay the total assessment, with interest calculated from October 1, 2005 to the date of payment. 3. If payments are made with property taxes, the first payment will be due with taxes in 2006. The total principle will be payable in annual installments for the period stated on the levy roll. Interest is paid on the unpaid balance. 4. Partial prepayments (such as paying half now and certifying the balance) are not allowed under current assessment policy. III. Recommended Council Procedure First Public Hearing to Order Improvements It is recommended that Council receive a staff presentation prior to holding the first public hearing. Following the presentation, a public hearing to consider ordering the Improvement Project should be conducted to receive public comments. Public comments concerning special assessments should be deferred to the second public hearing. A resolution ordering the improvements and authorizing development of the plans and specifications is provided for Council consideration upon closing of the first public hearing. Second Public Hearing for Special Assessments After taking action on the first proposed resolution to order the project, it is recommended that the Council then conduct a second public hearing on the proposed special assessments. The attached resolution certifying special assessments for street and storm drainage improvements for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive to the Hennepin County tax rolls is provided for Council consideration upon closing of the second public hearing. B q�. J Creek Parkwq LY a i i 2005 Stre ti -.it y Reconstruction Neighborhood Improvement Program provement H 1- 1 gram t �fJ1111�1�IIl �1 �1 1 U L 1 J} II_ LL J- Nil Year of Reconstruction Completed 2005 2006 Miles of Total 2007 Completed to Date 54 50.5 2005-2010 26 24.3 2 006 Under 2011 -2018 27 25.2 Stud Totals 107 100.0 2009 y 2010 um City of Brooklyn Center Report: February 14, 2005 Pavement and Curb Deterioration, 35+ years of service ain: Corrosion at fittings and control valves Sewer: Reverse grade along west portion of Summit Dr. ewer: Pipe Failure along Summit Dr. Structural Repairs for Vault on SCP Y" tit fy �qr �Tby r 1, °4 y T i':� �j TZ 'r �e"� i I U U may_ a- y P Ma r' i t a f t i I p A 2 ON V. �1 a.�ii i w "k •�.p l yJr` w v i fi r' „r y f W'l ip�y eF e f .mer Lake Trail and 69th Ave. Turn Lane R R R 6 4 t 4. r K K �4 7C r i. S F cial Assessments 272 itary Sewer Utility 34,456.00 er Utility 69 rm Sewer Utility 153,252.00 ital Improvements Fund 130 j et Construction Fund 23 icipal State Aid Fund $1 C Fund 119,100.00 $179019136.00 sessment Rates: zone $0.1202 /s.f. Zone $0.0313 /s.f. ssessments ranging from $2,400 to $57,700 per parcel n full No interest between March 15 and Sept. 30, 2005 n full from Oct. 1 to Nov. 29, 2005 with interest calculated at n installments with property taxes over a 10 -year period ng in 2006 with interest calculated at 5.5% payments cannot be accepted ILL BE SENT I Hearing March 14, 2005 11 Approves Plans March 28, 2005 t Bidding 1 1 antial Completion September 15, 2005 List Items October 21 1 November 2005 Construction Meeting j sletter struction Hotline Site Construction Coordinator Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on February 14, 2005 authorized consideration of street, storm drainage, and utility improvements in the area generally described as "Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street and Storm Drainage Improvements more specifically described as follows: Shingle Creek Parkway from Interstate 94/694 to 350 feet south of John Martin Drive; Summit Drive from Shingle Creek Parkway to State Trunk Highway 100; intersection of 69 Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway; and the Palmer Lake Pedestrian Trail; and WHEREAS, the Council has previously received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared by the Director of Public Works; and S WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on February 14, 2005 adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive area; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing was held on March 14, 2005, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the March 14, 2005 hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees. The maximum amount of obligations expected to be issued for such project is $272,731.00; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No, 2004 -14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, is hereby ordered and the Director of Public Works is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 or any success law, regulation, or ruling. S Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy No. 16244; and WHEREAS, assessment rolls, copies of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where street improvement costs are to be assessed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Such proposed assessments, Special Assessment Levy No. 16244 for street improvements, made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years as indicated on the assessment roll. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2006, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment at the rate of five and one half (5.5) percent per annum from October 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before September 30, 2005. After September 30, 2005, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from October 1, 2005 through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close -of- business November 29, 2005, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. :'::::GIT:Y'OF :R.ROOKLXN:C E r4TER: .1..12 ::::::::::SHtNGI E:CREE K:PaR RI E C.TI ........................KWAY. SIuMM....DR�. SI<J>T ON....... M- QV T:PfitO ECT. 200:4 14 TERM: LLMENTS:.EX47ENp1NG:0 VER:iA: PERIOD.. :?DEr:: EN :PQ). -.ytA— 0211821110005 16000 EARLE BROWN DR 16244 $11,835.24 0211821110007 16001 EARLE BROWN DR I 16244 1 $11,024.92 0211821120009 15937 SUMMIT DR I 16244 1 $3,760.79 0211821120010 15930 EARLE BROWN DR I 16244 $14,307.80 0211821120013 15951 EARLE BROWN DR 16244 $13,500.35 0211821120014 16000 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 16244 I $2,404.67 0211821120015 16050 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY I 16244 I $4,797.68 0211821210017 HENNEPIN CO SERVICE CENTER 1 16244 1 $14,192.31 0211821210018 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER I 16244 I $29,834.48 3511921340003 16301 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY I 16244 I $57,731.16 3511921340004 16221 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 1 16244 1 $13,346.81 3511921340006 16125 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY I 16244 1 $23,173.98 3511921430007 16300 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 1 16244 1 $16,780.10 3511921430008 16200 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY I 16244 I $14,305.17 3511921430009 16100 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY I 16244 I $19,789.79 3511921430017 16160 SUMMIT DR 16244 I $21,945.75 I TOTAL 1 1 $272,731.00 Pagel City Council Agenda Item No. 8c city of Office of the City Clerk BROOKLYN CENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk Jwovc 4mz�� DATE: March 9, 2005 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 71 st Avenue North) At its November 8, 2004, meeting, the City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 71st Avenue North). On December 13, 2004, the City Council held second reading and Public Hearing and it was continued until the final plat was approved. At its February 28, 2005, meeting, the City Council approved the final plat for the Osseo Schools Willow Lane Addition. This ordinance is offered for second reading and Public Hearing. If adopted, the ordinance adoption will be published in the City's official' newspaper on March 24, 2005, and become effective April 23, 2005 (30 days following its legal publication). MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 71 Avenue North) DATE: January 19, 2005 On the December 13, 2004 City Council agenda is the second reading and public hearing for an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 71" Avenue North). This ordinance amendment relates to the rezoning to C -1 of land owned by the Osseo School District intended for use as an adult education facility. The rezoning was approved by the City Council on November 8, 2004. The last action for any rezoning is to describe the property being rezoned under its new zoning classification in the zoning ordinance. This is the purpose of the above ordinance amendment, which also had a first reading on November 8, 2004. The legal description used in the ordinance amendment is that which is established by the platting of the property under consideration. The final plat approval by the City Council and the filing of the plat with Hennepin County is necessary to create a new legal description. This has not yet been accomplished and until it is the legal description used does not exist. It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, take comments on the ordinance amendment and table to the next meeting. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of December 2004 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND 71 ST AVENUE NORTH) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1110. TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R2) Two Family Residence District zoning classification: Section 35 -1130. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R4). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R4) Multiple Family Residence. District zoning classification: Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (C1). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (C 1) Service /Office District zoning classification: Lot 3. Block 1. Osseo Schools Willow Lane Addition Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: December 23, 2004 Effective Date: (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) City Council Agenda Item No. 8d City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Drainage and Utility Easements Within Lang Addition, Replat of Lot 2 Lang Addition and Center Brook Addition Attached for consideration is an ordinance vacating certain portions of drainage and utility easements within the property near the southwest corner of 71 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. Independent School District 279 has requested that these easements be vacated to allow development of the property as part of the final plat for Osseo Schools Willow Lane Addition. The final plat for Osseo Schools Willow Lane Addition was approved by City Council resolution on February 28, 2005. A copy of the proposed easement vacations and final plat are attached to this memorandum. Notices of the proposed easement vacations were sent to telephone, gas and electric utility companies for review. At this time, the City has not received objections to the proposed easement vacations from private utility companies. Consistent with the City Charter, this item was first read on December 13, 2004, published in the official newspaper on December 23, 2004, and is presented for the second reading and public hearing by the City Council. If adopted by the City Council, the ordinance would be effective after thirty days following its legal publication and after recording of the final plat for Osseo Schools Willow Lane Addition with Hennepin County. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing ill be held on the 14th day of March, 2005, at 7 .m. or g Y P as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance vacating certain drainage and utility easements near the southwest corner of 71 Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152). Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN LANG ADDITION, REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 LANG ADDITION AND CENTER BROOK ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Drainage and utility easements as described in Subsections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are hereby vacated. Subsection 1.1. That part of the 5.00 foot wide utility and drainage easement as dedicated in Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, LANG ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies easterly of the easterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, CENTER BROOK ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Hennepin County. Subsection 1.2. Those parts of the utility and drainage easements as dedicated in Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 1 REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 LANG ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie easterly of the easterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, CENTER BROOK ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Hennepin County, and its northerly extension. Subsection 1.3. Those parts of the 10.00 foot wide easement for utility and drainage purposes as dedicated along the common line between Lots 2 and 3, and the 5.00 foot wide easement for utility and drainage purposes as dedicated along the south line of Lot 3, Block 1, CENTER BROOK ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie easterly of a line 5.00 feet easterly of and parallel with the west lines of said Lots 2 and 3. Section 2. Notwithstanding the legal description provided above, it is the express intent of the City not to vacate any street, utility, drainage or walkway easements dedicated to the public in the plat of Osseo Schools Willow Lane Addition or easements per document nos. 934384, 2035836, 3281488, 7239999, and 3946720. RESOLUTION NO. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication and after recording of the final plat for Osseo Schools Willow Lane Addition with Hennepin County. Adopted this day of .2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) i Easement Vacation Exhibit Proposed Description of a Portion of the Utility and Drainage Easement to be Vacated in Lang Addition (December 3, 2004) That part of the 5.00 foot wide utility and drainage easement as dedicated In Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, LANG ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies easterly of the easterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, CENTER BROOK ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Hennepin County. P4 NORTH 4A 0 50 SCALE IN FEET BEARINGS ARE AsstINro 4 49 r Lot 2 L Lott v B lia o c k 1 Lot 3 CENTER o BROOK AMMON 0 D Vacation of utifiy r and &a;hojN easamants 11111111 06 WEST 25&67 Planning Civil Engineeriag land Surveying l hereby cer tify that this p lan. spedfieation or report w as Landscape Architectum Environmental prepared by me or under my erect supervision and that f om o Only licensed Lord Surveyor under the Ion of Me Stole of M:xreeola. no 1"" tae. a an C 0�_ ASSOCIATES T (a, R o g ma.O4w..++41 fo net. 4 2 3 Y 316 e asa Easement Vacation Exhibit Proposed Description of a Portion of the Utility and Drainage Easement to be Vacated in Replat of Block 2 Lang Addition (December 3, 2004) Those parts of the utility and drainage easements as dedicated in Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 LANG ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie easterly of the easterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, CENTER BROOK ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Hennepin County, and its northerly extension. NORTH U ft �t SC:"X IN FEET O l SEAM= AK •tssl•eco s� r� Lot Lot f B I'd o c k 1 '3 's CENTER BROOK AMMON �iroposed vocation of utAity and dalhop easements 0 *wr 256.67 Planning Civil Engineering land Surveying t hereby certify mot this OW. specification or report was Landacape Arc6itecturc Bnrironmental wepor.d y c or L and my dire de r the t and t hat t a om Ault' Li Surwya antler IM b.s of Ue Stots of es'snesoto. 7701 Nev aeite701 ASSOCIATES Ref. 41zZ(o 0 seas t— 1 i Easement Vacation Exhibit Proposed Description of a Portion of the Utility and Drainage Easement to be Vacated in Center Brook Addition (December 3, 2004) Those parts of the 10.00 foot wide easement for utility and drainage purposes as dedicated along the common line between Lots 2 and 3, and the 5.00 foot wide easement for utility and drainage purposes as dedicated along the south line of Lot 3, Block 1, CENTER BROOK ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie easterly of a line 5.00 feet easterly of and parallel with the west lines of said Lots 2 and 3. NORTH 0 50 �s IL %%mmil t P�F I SCALE IN FEET ,140 eEeeelos ME eSStJMW It9 5 I Lot 2 J°°56 '6. q Ail O S0 6 0 QI9, t Lot 1 B i 10 C k 1 Lot 3 11` West tiles of Lots 2 and 3 a �l CENTER o I 2 1 BROOK ADDITION g et 1 `te 5 1 1- -lProposed Voeotion of ut#tiy r i 3 and drainage easement r O� Wgr 25467 Plaunin` Civil Engineering Land Surveying l he eDy Will that this pen. epei&otion a r*Wt va L landscape Architecture Environmental weaa..e by e YMer m y Bred nde, t 1 and that I en1 O duly Li Minnesota SYrv.yor under the IOM of IM Stole of Minneeela. two-s ASSOCIATES Tdg i` te.e sls Rs rI su- Reg. No. 41 L L 6 D t2 y 04 ve, ►+rc a sew uuuu� f p W d y l a J qq g n� S cl L U yFi1i 'at 12 4 s 3 F33FyFai;j a f f d j s aa -3 a F I s s ssF1 -ii I.1 $�s�$s Q !1 al l 19 s a LP s.�� IE Ill' a F x 0 *a s� ;g� s b s s _�i�e�g H a m i� ^6E�.S�awa m Fi gsa u R sFa i€ I F l g aF3ss.ja g 3 1 g e l g 1 g s3 ul 5 7 i� s FosB m g i 4 d Y$ g i gam. y a y 31�� s e �E� 39 aJ8 OSSEO SCHOOLS WILLOW LANE ADDITION Da #A i 0 o af' 1C.R. DOC. No 1 8 I ra I g L J I i L 0'4L I i� 1 ��4j°P f/ I x Nxjer Ave. H. I I r I l I ya I --ICI a a. N I rr nre !sok:e ,tva N lT laS I Ai� 1fAAlti 's pp/L1fT O.W A y `W EX �/Q�/ I x L �J I :E: wi«vs\ I Il. w e'a'b r• —T 3. a I r 1 21 MaPtE..fPtY.._.._. s xr I y q� I ai I 1 EXCrPMN I y I I d��, i 3 3° I t r r l o so too I ea I a I Y9 1 I� I r. I i u.:i:, S' SCALE IN FEET I i i I s a�3 #3 1 r e xsorrs �n cw a xcx pox I xxp.ar m. xp.®•paa.,i.- I m E<>• f;' �1 I oaxe as pa x,xpp r rapx �m�. x, I" lrnry .irc N R �•Y�, mare I I I uxmes apian uxoxaei ar rwro 1 '�I u I xm mscau R Piny Ave. tl A etc i... J +iI apwm�r rxp+aa xp uMnr c.xxnn x< i Tesrorx z e It N.:... 1 1 Npp pLL N6A 3a 1 WK �r[[I x pDM YNL[$ OIMPpZ I 1 I 1 I app. 0 pp dPOxpa LM U.xS..p I J) J efl11C p 1FE: N xpM, Wlfx OM[xxgF I fL r 1 I aplGRq /wa aapa�.0 ppl -p -xrr lpR •3 sloxrr Ox M R.I. ASSOCIATES SHEET 2 OF 2 SHUTS City Council Agenda Item No. 9a City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members armody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCaule City Manager Date: March 10, 2005 Re: Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003, Bear Creek Capital LLC CVS Store Procedural and Legal Overview Mr. LeFevere will provide more detail on the legal questions regarding State law regarding the consideration of a re- zoning request. The following is an overview of some of the applicable laws: 1. Time Limit. A City must act on a zoning request within 60 days of the receipt of a complete application, or the application is approved. Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99 Subd. 2. a. The failure of a motion to approve is deemed a denial within the 60 day period. i. If there is no vote on an actual motion to approve or deny within the 60 day period (or extended period), the application would be deemed approved if there was no extension. 1. A motion to table or continue the matter would take precedence over a motion to approve or deny. b. Council Members voting against an approval of a zoning request must state their reasons for denial on the record. i. The reasons for denial must be reduced to writing and given to the applicant (If the denial is by operation of the failure of a motion to approve, the reasons for denial are to be set forth in the record of the meeting at which the motion to approve failed.) ii. As a general proposition, there must be legally valid reasons for denying a zoning application c. Upon written notice to the applicant of the reasons for the extension and the anticipated length of the extension (not to exceed 60 additional days), a City may extend the 60 day period for a maximum of an additional 60 days 2. Comprehensive Plan. A City's Comprehensive Plan is superior to its zoning ordinance in terms of what shall govern land use. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncehter.org 3. Super Majority Requirement. A 2/3 majority is required to rezone residential land to commercial or industrial use. 4. Simple Majority Requirement. a. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 Submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC. i. Requires only a simple majority vote in favor to pass. 1. This item approves site plan etc. b. Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Classification of Certain Land (Northwest Corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard) i. Motion to approve first reading and set date of hearing 1. Requires simple majority ii. Adoption of Ordinance 1. Requires 2/3 majority; or 2. Is adopted by virtue of Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99 if: a. Not acted upon within 60 days, or 60 days extension made in writing prior to end of 60 days from date of complete application 5. Other Legal Issues a. In order to sustain an action in the area of land use, the action must be defensible. The courts will look at things such as the Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents to see if the action in the specific instance is in conformity with those documents. The courts will also review reasons for denial to examine them for rationality and the absence of arbitrariness. i. A land use decision that is not based in the Comprehensive Plan and a legally defensible rationale may be subject to a successful legal challenge. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City's Comprehensive Plan, on pages 2 -21 and 2 -22 (and following), describes the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study. The Comprehensive Plan, Figure 2 -3, incorporates that Study by indicating a Retail /Business (RB) designation for the Northwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Boulevard. Thus, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the intention of the City is to have retail business redevelopment of this corner. On page 2 -22, the Comprehensive Plan identifies principles for redeveloping along Brooklyn Boulevard, including assembling parcels large enough to permit higher- density development and reduction of the number of access points. Brooklvn Boulevard Streetscane Amenities Studv The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (which is referred to in the Comprehensive Plan) on page 34 indicates that the Northwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Boulevard should be developed into a Neighborhood Commercial Node. Page 2 03/10/2005 Examples of these nodes are found on pages 63 and 69. On page 35, the Study designates Brooklyn Boulevard between 58 (Bass Lake Road) and 69 for predominantly commercial development. On page 87, site 8A. (CVS proposed site) is described as ideal for a neighborhood- oriented small commercial center, a use more commercially intense than is being proposed. Attached are the following materials: Copy of the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (Council Member Niesen requested copies of the document be made for the Council) and selected color copies of the Study. Copies of the relevant pages of the Comprehensive Plan An aerial submitted by CVS showing the locations they considered and traffic counts at those locations. Page 3 03/10/2005 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN SPECIFIC AREA PLANS Figure 2 -3, Land Use Plan, is the central element of the Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy. This map illustrates planned changes to the pattern of development by noting amendments over the map of 1996 land use. Explanation and guidance are provided by the following text, which is keyed to the Land Use Plan map by numbers. Those numbers also related to the areas shown in Figure 2 -2, City -Wide Land Use Issues. The Land Use Plan map was prepared based upon recently adopted sub -area plans such as the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994), consultations with property owners, current zoning, development trends and accepted city planning principles, which take into account access, visibility, building conditions, surrounding development and natural features. However, the proposed land uses do not always reflect existing zoning. This plan, unlike a zoning ordinance and map, is intended to be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances and market demands. As such, it is distinct from the zoning ordinance, which allows a more strictly defined range of possibilities. Therefore, some parcels show two or more potential land uses, where more than one use seems appropriate, or show a use that may become feasible in the long term rather than the near future. Other areas are indicated as needing further study before any changes in land use are proposed. 1 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study proposed an overall design theme for the public right -of -way of Brooklyn Boulevard along with redevelopment plans for specific sites. Several detailed studies were prepared for specific sites, each including two or more alternative site plans to illustrate the application of different design principles. That 1994 study provided direction to the City for land use and zoning decisions and for capital improvements, particularly in coordination with roadway changes. The recommendations of that plan have generally been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but the City will consult the Brooklyn Boulevard Study for further, more detailed, advice. The land use and redevelopment theme of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, broadly stated, recommends gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single- family homes, and replacing them with either: Commercial and office /service uses on sites that are large enough to provide for adequate circulation and good site design; or High- and medium density residential uses. JANUARY 2000 2 -2 I BRW, INC. *24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN Three key actors need to be addressed essed along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor: 1. The corridor land use plan 2. The size and shape of the property to be redeveloped 3. The design guidelines for redevelopment. Four principles for redeveloping properties in this corridor are: Assemble parcels that are large enough to permit higher- density development and reasonable access and circulation Identify desirable boundaries between the proposed and adjacent land" uses and create buffers. Reduce the number of private access points to Brooklyn Boulevard for the sake of traffic safety and flow. Provide comfortable and convenient internal pedestrian circulation systems to reduce car trips and encourage walking from adjoining neighborhoods. Promote higher- density developments located close to Brooklyn Boulevard. A series of 16 development guidelines from the Brooklyn Boulevard Stud ela y y orate upon these principles. They should be followed by the City when working with builders. In summary, the Brooklyn Boulevard Study recommends that the central segment of the corridor be used primarily as a commercial district while the balance of the corridor is devoted primarily to either higher- density housing or, south of Highway 100, single- family housing. The study recommended that neighborhood- oriented commercial uses be developed at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and 69th Avenue. The City should promote including some neighborhood service and retail functions in those three locations. JANUARY 2000 2 -ZZ BRw, INC. #24531 .mot AwR o i ti. l SF HD i _.a`MDR SF r SF Ns �aRB\ RB SF: MDR t- p,tn Space a SF O /H DR 2 OAM t OlMDR BII. 4` �IDR isrti RB /HDR p• i zone A RB SF i Refer also to the p olicivi and plans of the Brookfyn Boulevard Stroerscapo 1 Amenities Study (1940 i. R B d"C• 5 a t C 1 1 U SF 1 SF 1 i r~ S F RB /MDR /MIX S SF Q. P /MDR i Open Space p _SF HDR `3 7 t A G� TF HDR /I IEGFND: LAND JSE ABBREVfA SF 5mgie Family Two ;omdy Residential TF Two Family Q N"UftDormty R,esiderAial MDR MediumOensity Residenial 49WW's4y Resis{errlial HDR I gi-0erisiy Rssidenfol Rsmll RusinECS Rb Recall Business 0 ohiceService Business Office/ service Btrciness I Indushial Porks and Upen Spcx e F parks and C4en space. MVX ,Nixed Use Induwrtul Primary Rode- olopmery Aran Public and Semi Public Secondary Rodew bprr-r# Aria Under eboed r� t ar w a to Area ea kxtl lnkA /Creek •_riscot to Bwrxlory d Text Reference Figure 2 -3 /B okAsp t cam r.. P a b r� Land Use Plan MEMO ai 4� NNW= Ell main R iE�i�► i iii it go r�+Ni 1 e +e►�w IE i 7 its sF X �►'1�1�1� *i' �y> .0 Not City 1' l Ak in Cri i lllgh Dclulry xesMcntial C,hnrch Xhpol school rh I <i00 aCi0Aiii�o A�ti�� VV ('nrrfdor i'mil Alon 1lro c Yr" R A, .k, Rrr�a H rd 4 "0 Amu KOJI11 Major F11lry IP If CyUmlcrcfwl B Open tip7lcc /Pond/P:1,1� R Rlde 4 or (:onuucrc Lai Q —Offkc 9 n Fuyh•Dt nail rown Cc11 Nc E Re.ldcmlaf Cominervi l llxed Uvc Node Major Entry Fligh- Ocmity Kcgfslcntfnl Town Cuucr"Q 63rd AVC. U Focal Fenturcl eov0�,o� ��w�nrasmc,omc�oc+oo r�rrNYIIQ� Towh Cenlcrll Q lilgis De11'JltyQ 0 Q Residential 0 1 q t1t Couuncrcinf BrooldyuCcl RL per 1g Road .Q r Church Of1k, C .lal, I N ghhorhocnl 1 C+mcrrial \Ads Svrh Y`�p'S ononoopdnpL 1 p flfgh- fklulty 0 RcsldvnHnl tflljor Entry 111Rh- Oeoflts• RcsJdtnRL .q Nlgh- Density Repidenaaf q.. Legend 'f a7 Predominant land Use District tnr+t+allonat F_xistingl }sc City Gifcway to Remain i Propn!ccd 1 IlcfkvcN.lpn +cot i n.un t is 1 o i tom 7000 ©It �fi�s Figure 18: Framework Plan I Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 34 A Prl ary RCdI y pm,nt I C g,re toot lJuudrnn dInlrrmcilonl w ��M wrnr ^mr s���� Parking Internal (Acros olleMtn E till, from Pri vary Sltc) Win MinorArteriat Bruoklyii Boulevard 1 Development Developnxettl Locatioti Coltcept Alternative B Ahtltt- L,vel, 4 .�rklllg Pedestrian/• Namil L /i Development i Bicyclist Access i i% cL °t vehicttinr a dlf CP ..7t'ry�` Parkhla fielovv Development Development Trade /Uternative A Alternative C Figure 26: Redevelopment Patterns 5. Corridor Slwuld have –15. (AMwr 6P1Ltg Fadlbdes 1. Rkde Prolcels 51,041141 be Located In One Physical M"1211 Continuity and Se;dlor. Should he Qw1dr l" of InhrsrcQrnl pronuwed 6. Developments Slwuld 2. Mvelolnocat PC,% -INes Should Have Visual local 9. ROO& Shoud Ire;o High as t•oro.ible Features Havc VaricA She les ('1 "hln EvlaOte IlepresSnlS 1 n 1glYCr•1)rnsilY Ucwmlopnnnt) 12. All Sides of a auilding should Have 1 4. Screcning Should be provklcd Co.l'imtllt for Adjouting Sing[. Family 'frcalutux Neighlwrhoud, 1 •1G. Signs Should Complement Devcloponolt 1 14 a. Wall.. Shot141 N 1 14. pacOhlet for be Trcatcd- j1 i' Dlcycusts Not Hlank r;� Slrrndd be l Provided i. VAALgrs oCCVtrddor Should In Wen Dcflnetl N Y 3. vehicular Access (Ruildiogs, 1.altdrenping, PcnccS) /M helot.. Should In as For from 11. MaterlalY and Colol, 10. Wlrking WIx- 111tersecllonS 5(10old he Ccmlply tole: 5 011tj Have l�utAriap,d islandv Developltteitt n1u1 Ed. –13. Vedcsvlaa Walks Should E l tlta nCement Littk All Dcscdoprucltts Guidelines Figure 27. Recommended Development Guidelines Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 63 a Figure 28: Small Site Development Option ®m tot N i i 1R I Figure 29: Mixed-Use Development Option Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study .69 I -l� k. S. i t etc (:74 a 71 P69 4 f a h r t om r, `t I' 1� 1 T' i. j 1 t1 t gy�pp` `S l s =i 2 T S Legend f r Redevelopment Predominant Staging Land Use r e,IWoy {and L'x t tNln/ H•�2: -1 i to Nemin WiaenW '�t =k t IkddtloporstAm R�tle�l i �I� 7 aberonJuy PAW ;t •r' .;..�b: -Y• f r_ PehrcbppcltM Any ®WtlF�tlOml Figure 42: Corridor Redevelopment Plan Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscap6 Amenities Study 84 ate r y rrrLr��rra�C_ dl�e J ..i z 4 Pa yCR LaKf Pa RK ,1110111, 9.300: L9Ly Csc: et i.. F 11,10 1 1,00.01 5, SO I K g ion. Al 4,000) Y� 1 G,100 1 Jo 20# _I :I: ;1 V -r t .1 e T Legend FAisaugDaily Trrrcic w-1010 Daily Traffic AWAf it 1 C /r�' Qe r r 1 ••r '.J 11 Y IN 1000 NW P'igure 14: Traffic Volumes Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 19 I 1 rTM f r� is RM z or tai I •:r y�F r i 2 r~Y z fr 1r� 7• pdn 000'9 any ue6oj ci rlr�� DOE., '�"�w F y 'Lp ,f`��. a P rr� t 4` Y';/ ;Ni .r •ss° r cc C t ON G t 2J k.� y li R #i v u N A s�:,,. t a vd 23,50 vPd I kl n B o Y p 23400 vPd *4 +�E. 'Aar. 3 o is y ao LL o .s f 4 c 0 o A o a a f M I s QQ i Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study May 1994 Prepared for: The City of Brooklyn Center Minnesota Prepared by: BRW j. I '1 i Y loo fez e NO PARTICIPANTS City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 569 -3350 City Council Planning Commission Todd Paulson, Mayor Tim Wilson Donald Booth Barb Kalligher Chairperson Debra Hilstrom Kristen Mann Robert Mickelson Mark Holmes Dave Rosene Chair Pro Tem Dianne Reem Celia Scott Ella Sander Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force Lee Anderson Mark Holmes Dr. Duane Orn Bill Bartram Marty Iten Phyllis Owens Janis Blumentals Sharon McDonald Dianne Reem Ron Christensen Robert Mickelson Don Rosen Lee Cook, Jr. Dr. David Monson Frank Slawson Joan Gilbaugh Dave Nelson Perry Watson Charles Gustafson Uhde Nelson City Staff Gerald Splinter, City Manager Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development Diane Spector, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Former Director of Public Works Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections Mark Maloney, City Engineer BRW, Inc. Thresher Square Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP 700 Third Street So. Tony Heppelman, PE Minneapolis, MN 55415 Bill Weber, AICP (612) 370 -0700 Candis Sheptak, AIGA Brooklyn Bouievard Streetscape Amenities Study i CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY 1 IL INTRODUCTION 7 Background 7 Review of Previous Studies 7 III. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS 13 Existing Conditions 13 Forces Issues 20 IV. PROJECT GOALS 31 V. FRAMEWORK PLAN 33 VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS 38 Streetscape Components 38 Recommended Streetscape Enhancement Plan 43 VII. SPECIAL THEME ELEMENTS 45 Design Theme Alternatives 45 Definition of Theme Elements 47 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 50 Improvement Staging 50 Improvement Cost Estimate 54 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study ii CONTENTS Page IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 61 Redevelopment Issues 61 Redevelopment Case Studies 70 Redevelopment Plan 83 X. IMPLEMENTATION 89 Implementation of Streetscape Enhancements 89 Implementation of Development Guidelines 89 Implementation of Site Redevelopments 96 Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study iii FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Page Figure 1: Area Context 8 Figure 2: View Looking 14 Figure 3: View Looking 14 Figure 4: View Looking 14 Figure 5: View Looking 14 Figure 6: View Looking 15 Figure 7: View Looking 15 Figure 8: View Looking 15 Figure 9: View Looking 15 Figure 10: Forces Issues Segment 1 16 Figure 11: Forces Issues Segment 2 16 Figure 12: Forces Issues Segment 3 17 Figure 13: Forces Issues Segment 4 17 Figure 14: Traffic Volumes 19 Figure 15: Bus Routes 21 Figure 16: Sidewalks Trails 22 Figure 17.• Corridor Forces Issues 24 Figure 18: Framework Plan 34 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study iv FIGURES AND TABLES Page Figure 19: Streetscape Configurations 39 Figure 20: Streetscape Lighting Alternatives 41 Figure 21: Intersection Treatment Alternatives 41 Figure 22: Recommended Streetscape Enhancements 44 Figure 23: Image Theme Inventory 46 Figure 24: Recommended Theme Elements 48 Figure 25: Improvement Staging Plan 51 Figure 26: Redevelopment Patterns 63 Figure 27: Recommended Development Guilelines 63 Figure 28: Small Site Development Option 69 Figure 29: Mixed -Use Development Option 69 Figure 30: 1 -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Existing Conditions 70 Figure 31: I -694 to 69th .Ave. Area Special Study Alternative A 72 Figure 32: 1 -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative B 72 Figure 33: 1 -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative C 73 Figure 34: I -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative C 73 Figure 35: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues 75 Figure 36: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept A 75 Figure 37: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept B 78 Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study v FIGURES AND TABLES Page Figure 38: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept C 78 Figure 39: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues 82 Figure 40: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Concept A 82 Figure 41: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Concept B 82 Figure 42: Corridor Redevelopment Plan 84 Tables Pa Table 1: Cost Estimate Improvement Components 55 Table 2: Cost Estimate Development Phases and Summary 58 Table 3: Survey of Land Use Controls and Incentives 92 Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study vi I. SUMMARY Summary The material presented in the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study can be grouped under four major categories: Background and Framework Chapters I. Summary, 11. Introduction, III. Inventory/Analysis, IV. Project Goals, and V. Framework Plan include background information, set the "stage and establish the overall direction for Brooklyn Boulevard. Public Streetscape Improvements Chapters VI. Streetscape Enhancements, VII. Special Theme Elements, and VIII. Improvement Cost Estimate identify and define all public streetscape and specialty improvements and provide a cost estimate. Private Redevelopments Chapter IX. Redevelopment Program defines guidelines for private developments and includes examples of prototypical developments as well as three redevelopment case studies. Implementation Chapter X. Implementation outlines implementation strategies and steps for Brooklyn Boulevard. The summary includes an outline of major issues presented in each Chapter, as well as the key conclusions and recommendations regarding the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities project design and development. Introduction Brooklyn Boulevard, which serves many purposes commercial district, major roadway, gateway to the City, and intra- community link is undergoing a major Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 1 I. SUMMARY transformation from a low- density residential street to a major commercial arterial with City as well as regional significance. The purpose of this study is to provide a definitive plan for shaping the image and the utilization of the Brooklyn Boule- vard Corridor over the next 20 years. A review of previous studies reveals that much of the thinking in the past regard ing the future of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is in line and consistent with the comments and recommendations of this study. Some of the major conclusions and recommendations of previous studies are: Brooklyn Boulevard is a modern suburban American road designed for the automobile Development should be done in compact, functional districts which contain related uses Single- family residential uses should be converted to higher densities. There is some potential for additional residential developments. Employment opportunities for area residents should be increased through commercial development. The office market is slow, but could strengthen in the late 1990's. Attracting retail in the 1990's may be difficult, but restaurants and other hospitality sector uses might present an opportunity. Inventory /Analysis An examination of the existing conditions and the forces /issues which impact the project area reveals that there are three key areas which need to be addressed: Traffic Circulation. Regional, as well as local, vehicular traffic circula- tion and access, which is one of the most critical elements for the com- mercial uses in the Corridor, needs to be improved especially in the area north of I -694. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 2 I. SUMMARY 0 Land Use Patterns and Development. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor contains many incompatible land uses and underdeveloped parcels which should be redeveloped. Enhancements /Image. The Corridor has very few urban design or landscaping amenities and it lacks a clearly identifyable image and focus. Project Goals Five primary goals have been established for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor: 1. Favorable Business Environment 2. Well Defined and Screened Residential Neighborhoods 3. Comprehensive Area Access and Circulation System 4. Capacity to Accommodate Regional Traffic 5. Enhanced Visual Environment Framework Plan The Framework Plan defines the major components of the Brooklyn Boulevard Enhancement and Improvement Program. It establishes the general framework for all the other planning, design, and implementation activities in the Corridor. The major recommendations of the Framework Plan are: 1. Remove all single family residential uses in the Corridor north of Highway 100. 2. Establish clearly defined land use districts with the central segment of the Corridor developed primarily for commercial uses. 3. Increase the land use intensities by creating denser, multi- or mixed use developments. 4. Accommodate regional as well as local traffic by widening the Boule- vard north of I -694 and by continually monitoring the rest of the Corridor. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 3 I. SUMMARY 5. Enhance the general physical environment by implementing a street- scape improvement program. 6. Develop special theme treatments in order to establish a distinct image and identity for the Corridor. Streetscape Enhancements The Streetscape Enhancements component includes the following recommended improvements: A revised streetscape configuration to include landscaped medians and a single left -turn lane A random pattern of boulevard trees A distinct streetlighting system Intersection enhancements which include transit shelters, where required, pedestrian lights, and landscaping treatments with a heavy emphasis on evergreen landscaping materials Special Theme Elements The key recommendation, in regard to special treatments, is to develop a special theme for Brooklyn Boulevard. The recommendation is to adapt the "Earl Brown Heritage Center Theme" for Brooklyn Boulevard, as well as for other major thoroughfares in the City, in order to give the segment of Brooklyn Boulevard, which is in Brooklyn Center, a stron- ger identity and to reinforce the development of a more distinct and unified overall image for Brooklyn Center. Major components of the special theme element program are: City Gateways at the northern and southern city limits Freeway Entries at I -694 and Highway 100 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 4 1. SUMMARY Corridor Markers at 58th Avenue and at 69th Avenue A Focal Feature for the Corridor at 63rd Avenue Improvement Program The Improvement Program (1) defines Corridor segments which would receive similar treatments, (2) provides a preliminary cost estimate of the proposed im- provements, and (3) indicates anticipated staging of the improvement program. The general sequencing of the enhancement improvement program is from north to south with the section of the roadway, which coincides with the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard widening north of I -694, to be improved first. Redevelopment Program The redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard will require the combined efforts of the City and the private sector. The public improvement program and the private redevelop- ment efforts should be treated as a related set of tools which complement and reinforce each other. In redeveloping the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, three key issues need to be considered: Size and Shape of Redevelopment Parcels. The parcels should be large enough to permit higher- density developments, reasonable access and circulation, and buffering for adjoining uses. Program and Pattern for Redevelopment. The program for redevelop- ment should be tailored to the needs of the City and the adjoining neigh- borhoods. The pattern of redevelopment should be steered toward higher- density developments with buildings close to the street for easy access by pedestrians and bicyclists and in order to establish a stronger, more urban, frontage along Brooklyn Boulevard. Development Guidelines. The Development Guidelines, outlined in this report, should be used to promote the overall goals for Brooklyn Boule- vard and to help reinforce a more urban character for the Corridor. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 5 I. SUMMARY The three case studies I -694 to 69th Avenue Area, 69th Avenue Area, and 71st Avenue Area are presented in order to illustrate the application of the planning and design development guidelines and recommendations to actual situations along the Corridor. The Redevelopment Plan identifies proposed redevelopment areas along the Corridor and presents a recommended sequencing of the redevelopment program. Implementation The implementation of the Brooklyn Boulevard project will require three different programs: Streetscape Enhancement Program. The implementation of the Street- scape Enhancement Program has already begun with the application for a $500,000 ISTEA grant for Streetscape and Special Theme Element improvements. Additional funding will need to be identified to complete the Streetscape Enhancement Program. Development Guidelines. The Development Guidelines, which are outlined in this study, need to be refined and adopted into the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. The recommendation is to use a Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone to implement the development guide- lines. Site Redevelopment Program. The implementation of the Site Redevel- opment Program will require close cooperation between the City and private developers. The City needs to identify programs, such as TIF (Tax Increment Financing) or other developer incentives, to promote the desired design, developments, and improvements and to be able to participate actively in the redevelopment process. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 6 11. INTRODUCTION Background The Brooklyn Boulevard study area (Figure 1) is located in Brooklyn Center between the southern and northern city limits. It encompasses the roadway as well as all immediately adjoining parcels. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor serves many purposes: Commercial District. It is one of three key commercial districts in Brooklyn Center. The other two are Brookdale Mall and the Earl Brown Heritage Center. Major Roadway. Brooklyn Boulevard is classified as an "A" Minor Arterial and it carries between 20,000 and 50,000 vehicles a day. Gateway. It acts as the principal gateways to the City from the north and the south, as well as from the highways. Community Link. It serves as a primary link within the community especially between the north and south sides, which are divided by 1 -694. Over the years, Brooklyn Boulevard has been undergoing a major transformation from a low density residential street to a major commercial arterial. Along with this change have come pressures to accommodate more traffic and to intensify the land uses along the Corridor. The purpose of this study is to provide a definitive plan for shaping the image and the utilization of the Brooklyn Boule- vard Corridor over the next 20 years. The intent is to create a practical document which will help provide realistic and comprehensive guidelines for the future development of the Corridor. Review of Previous Studies A number of studies have been conducted over the past fifteen years to address various aspects of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. These studies have provided valuable insight into how the Corridor has been viewed in the past and,what its Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 7 Area I31•t •r•. N. II 101.1 A.• I N a' 5 e e 17 0101 A.k N. If• A.• 11 i 0 10 11 t fSt11 f31. V U e� s Z Brooklyn L 300 Pa w 1 t $1111 N 03 A.• 13re O N ure A,," w �l I09 8, Brooklyn N' 7a .0111... t• Maple Boulevard ts: A`• ao N Corridor I OlFGrovea ,�p�• Study Area A, O.S al• A.• 2 77.. 6 j r 7314 JAI. 2 30 End A.. I, o >:•?:�k is ::w •r f A L 01111 A M 31 37 6 1 a 4 8+1 tar A.• N 1 :;:i1ir:ji'i*; ::::;;:;i5:; •::w s j?rd A.• Crystal f: :L;•i ?:Lai 10 n W t 0 1 Lmke Ar •j yya.;. Z i s. n ole •1111 1 ff7 1� SeAftidt ro 7 1!• 1 1� lfn• Rt ■k• e•1 Hope ry tat Robbin ale i 1 Oft 0: A. r C a e 5 7 Ar• c C i Plymouth 23 I: Ilk �aa� Minneapolis= M•dicln• I A.• n o.. A. Lake a. 70 w. E 10110%l icine 1 o I d e n 102^ j ake G�} taWalle .X11 Thfotlor. d Sw••n•y- win i 52 fir ale ,5 11 1e.•le ti. I_ aka 2 P rk .w Figure 1: Area Context Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study B 11. INTRODUCTION future potential might be. The conclusions of the previous studies are generally consistent with the conclusions of this study and thus form a strong base for future actions. 1. Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan The first study which addressed the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is the "Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan completed in 1979 by BRW, Inc. The Plan identifies several key characteristics of Brooklyn, Boulevard which are still applicable today: Regarding the general image of Brooklyn Boulevard, it states: "It is a modern suburban American road designed for the automo- bile. Emphasis added Its scale, speed, and nearby land uses also emphasize the auto over the pedestrian, the fast over the slow, the active over the passive, and the modern over the historic. Its nature is split between that of a minor arterial road designed for moving autos through the City and a community commercial strip serving as the destination for numerous local shopping trips. It also states that: "However, the danger exists that the appearance PP earance of Brooklyn Boulevard could deteriorate seriously and that traffic problems could become a severe aggravation." It also includes a number of specific development and circulation recom- mendations for the Boulevard. Some of the key recommendations are: "Encourage the development of compact, functionl districts which contain related land uses." "Encourage commercial development and redevelopment in unified, functional patterns..." Convert single family residential uses to higher densities, except south of Highway 100. Because traffic is a critical factor for Brooklyn Boulevard: "Up- grade the arterial road system as necessary so as to accommodate increased traffic demands and widen Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -694. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 9 II. INTRODUCTION The Plan that Brooklyn Center has entered the second stage of its lifetime. The first stage was building up. The second stage, which needs to happen now, is stabilization and redevelopment. In its summary conclusions, the Comprehensive Plan recommends: Establishing zoning controls, such as a minimum lot size of one acre, for redevelopment Assisting private redevelopment efforts on a case -by -case basis Acquiring critical parcels and "land banking" them in order to maintain development control over the nature and scale of redevel- opment. 2. Housing Market Study "The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and their Impacts on the Community" was completed in May 1989 by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. The overall conclusions of this study are that: The potential for additional household growth is constrained by the lack of available land." The growth during the 1990's is estimated at about 200 households." "Providing additional housing options for older Brooklyn Center residents will constitute a large portion of demand for new housing during the 1990's." It also identifies a strong need for new rental housing to meet needs from a variety of groups, including young singles, empty nesters and moderate income persons" and up to 500 new general- occupancy apartment and rental townhome units could be added during the 1990's in Brooklyn Center." The Housing Study concludes with a list of policies /strategies for Brook- lyn Center including: "Remove inappropriate uses (single family housing) along Brooklyn Boulevard, and make sure existing and future land uses Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 10 II. INTRODUCTION are consistent with the commercial orientation of this heavily trafficked thoroughfare and "Work to increase employment opportunities to area residents through commercial development." 3. Commercial /Industrial Market Study "A Study of Commercial and Industrial Development Trends in the Brooklyn Center Market Area" was completed in June 1991 by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. The overall conclusions of this study are that: The office market could strengthen in the late 1990's, however, "Brooklyn Center will need to aggressively market its strengths and improve its image in order to attract office development. The 1990's will be relatively difficult times for attracting new retail into small neighborhood centers, because the primary retail additions are occuring at regional malls. The one exception might be restaurants or other facilities related to the hospitality sector. "Brooklyn Boulevard provides the best location for new neighbor- hood strip center developments. If sites were made available,... developers would view the area favorably, given the high traffic and visibility along the street. "The City of Brooklyn Center should facilitate a long -term plan for redevelopment of the less cohesive segments of Brooklyn Boule- vard (in particular, the area south of I-694 to Bass Lake Road), which would consolidate retail users and small neighbor- hood office buildings, with shared parking and access. Single family homes on this thoroughfare should be removed to allow for new commercial development." 4. Redevelopment Study The latest plan is "The Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment ,Study which was prepared in March 1993 by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. This study addresses the general Framework for the Corridor and includes a number of recommendations regarding: Enhancement of the physical environment in the Corridor Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 11 11. INTRODUCTION Improvement of traffic circulation Creation of gateways Upgrading of the facilities for pedestrian and transit users In addition, the Redevelopment Study contains a number of recommenda- tions regarding redevelopment sites and standards. Major redevelopment areas are identified at Brookdale Mall, 63rd Avenue, and at 69th Avenue. Many of the concepts and recommendations presented in the previous studies support the overall goals for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor and are incorporat- ed in the current study. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 12 III. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS This section includes a detailed inventory and analysis of the project area. Although some of the inventory /analysis features have been documented in various previous studies, it is believed that a comprehensive summary of the existing conditions will be helpful, not only in understanding the current situation but also in future planning efforts. This Inventory /Analysis summary will serve as a reference guide regarding the existing conditions and forces /issues for current, as well as future, site specific planning and decision making. Existing Conditions The Brooklyn Boulevard study area includes that segment of Brooklyn Boulevard which is located within the Brooklyn Center city limits. The Corridor includes a major four -lane roadway and a large variety of land uses located along the Corridor. The photographs in Figures 2 through 9 illustrate typical existing conditions in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. Figures 10 through 13 illustrate the existing roadway configuration, land uses, and zoning along the Corridor. The maps start at the northern end with Figure 10 and end at the southern end with Figure 13. General Corridor Characteristics In general, the Corridor has the following major physical characteristics: Four -Lane Roadway. The four -lane roadway has varying median conditions including: no median south of Highway 100; a grassy median between Highway 100 and h Avenue; protected le g 58t enue• and a mixture of ft- Y p turn lanes and double, side -by -side, left -turn lanes in the rest of the Corridor. Minimum Public Enhancements. The roadway right -of -way contains a limited amount of enhancements, such as street furniture, lighting, or landscaping. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 13 a. :o Figure 2: View Looking South at 70th Avenue j Figure 3: View Looking South at 69th Avenue n i Figure 4: View Looking South at 66th Avenue R VINO Figure 5: View Looking South at 62nd Avenue Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 14 I R x r e Figure 6: View Looking North at 61st Avenue r r Figure 7: View Looking North at 55th Avenue I Figure 8: View Looking North at Highway 100 i. r' i a n. Figure 9: View Looking North at 50th Avenue Brooklyn Boulevard streetscape Amenities Study 15 l �ip..74 yy 11 M J 1 3 y f Figure 10: Forces Issues Segment 1 C+ 4 e 'i F, w y $op Fs Mme. �NOrth 9 iaozao .400 YS Figure 11: Forces Issues Segment 2 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 98 i -7 bA— V r o\ Ap 0.0�1p0y f 't r Y. �Or I F +�r fr 1 t... L 47 v}t L a Figure 12: Forces Issues Segment 3 Ol fiy1 (y�U IA .,fret J .z✓ s.vf �r �s�ee�si�i (L �r �LJt�I �L �Ir r dr•ir �'.b�' 4 y'. �,4 a r A j t i •s y rye tr',. w q Ilk ro o'fao zoo -'+oa f'; r.. na_ i Figure 13: Forces Issues Segment 4 Brooklyn 8010 StreetstePe Amenities Study i 17 111. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS Overhead Utilities. The Corridor, except for a short segment at Highway 100, includes overhead power lines which parallel or cross the roadway. Mixture of Land Uses. Except for a few segments where the land uses are relatively uniform, most of the Corridor contains a wide variety of land uses juxtaposed along the roadway. The land uses range from single- family residential to a regional shopping center Brookdale Mall and include: medium density apartments; public and semi- public institutions such as schools and churches; office buildings; and a variety of commer- cial uses from home businesses to large automobile dealerships. The appearance and upkeep of the properties along the Corridor ranges from well developed and very well maintained to dilapidated, especially where properties are vacant or incompatible with adjoining uses. Varying Edge Conditions. The landscaping and urban design treatments and appearance of the properties along the Corridor also vary greatly ranging from the well landscaped to devoid of landscaping. Circulation Systems Brooklyn Boulevard is a key circulation route for Brooklyn Center as well as for the northwest suburbs of the Twin Cities. It serves as a major intra -city link for Brooklyn Center as well as a primary access route to I -694 for the northwest suburbs. Besides vehicular circulation, Brooklyn Boulevard also serves as a travel route for pedestrians and bicyclists. Vehicular Circulation One of the key features and issues in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is vehicular traffic circulation. Existing vehicular traffic volumes on Brooklyn Boulevard, which is classified as an "A" Minor Arterial, range from 18,000 vehicles a day south of Highway 100 to almost 47,000 vehicles a day just north of 1 -694 (Figure 14). The projections for the Year 2010 0 0 are that the volumes will increase to 22,000 and 54,000 vehicles a day, respectively. Besides through traffic, Brooklyn Boulevard also has to accomodate a large number of street and private property access points. Figures 10 through 13 illustrate all the access points to Brooklyn Boulevard from single- family residences and other uses along the Corridor. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 18 rrr LF BRO0K2 ri P W PA MER L AKE PARK ii 4r 6 C93ti0mnQe F S 4` -h ii 1 I 9 640 e•. S 0 t l'Llr�1 1 ta l l la J _�sitn:zt�e 4 000) Lh r,: K 3 =1si�� F_ O AROOOWL E, s a 3 1 -•4 at 4 UW 4 h S 1 6; ,_I..., fi•,44F _l..x {_u. "'"a_tei��e.., r,t: E -3E:: .3 UPPER MIN s r r LAKE C t a Legend E.xisting Daily Traffic y� —?010 Daily Traffic I T RIME WN LAKE I I rtl N .h crrr off'. Qary oAt� 0 5 ,M z R Figure 14: Traffic Volumes Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 19 111. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS Transit, Bicyclists, and Pedestrians Brooklyn Boulevard is currently served by Bus Routes 5, 14, 81, 94G, and 94K (Figure 15). None of the bus routes is continuous along Brooklyn Boulevard and there are very few provisions, such as benches or shelters, for bus patrons. The facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians (Figure 16) include sidewalks along both sides of the roadway and a short designated bicycle route along the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 66th and 68th Avenues. The primary bicycle trails in Brooklyn Center are located east of Brooklyn Boulevard, along Xerxes Avenue and the Shingle Creek greenway system and west of the Boulevard along Upper Twin Lake and Lee Avenue. Forces /Issues The Forces /Issues Analysis is one of the most critical steps in the planning and design process. Correct identification of key Forces and Issues is a basic re- quirement for finding appropriate solutions. Another reason for documenting the Forces /Issues is that, as the planning process proceeds over the next 20 years, circumstances will change and recommendations included in this study may need to be reevaluated. In such situations, the Forces /Issues Analysis presented here, will serve as base information for rethinking and redirecting the Corridor redevelopment process. Forces are existing physical features or conditions which have a bearing on what could happens in a project. Issues are trends or characteristics which need to be considered in the planning process. Forces and issues can represent either an opportunity or a constraint. Sometimes, through creative planning, design, or funding, a constraint can be turned into an opportunity. For example, the requirement for a stormwater storage pond might be considered to be a constraint and the pond relegated to the most undesirable part of a site. On the other hand, the pond requirement could be looked upon as an opportunity and, with the proper design, become an open space focal feature and a key Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 20 Shin a i I- 694 low so 1 i� ...65th 63rd'A4ve. y r 7 0w tto` f c Av 1 J EII 1 e Legend a r Local Bus Routes I r i Express Bus Routes t Bus Route Number 3 500 ,000 2m R Figure 15: Bus Routes Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 21 a<� °a Z �.WE..♦ IT i 69th Ave.. ON r •r■ rqa ❑o❑npq❑❑ ❑ngao no❑❑oopn nII ❑Oq ggo❑'nnnnnnq❑qnqaaoqa❑oq. a* O 1 0 2 t W 11-694 r m r o 0 o o o ododoo00o0 i i o �i o .0 Q0 00 r Q Q 116"" O 4 i t 9 41 q�p„apGQ2j}, o❑❑ o❑ on ❑000ao ❑ng oII❑a ❑°❑tfngann ®q ❑nqn �IIO❑❑aonoi� 0 0 s o ryo. c •i'i -.ate Al,: 0 s 0 a OQ OQOp ❑❑a aonaQ QII o° �a. LL QOp0 0001300 %rrrr■o 0• O❑Loba r q -o e t o s k f, f r Q r. OOOOOOD170 ,p0° j O�SQ❑QO❑nno y d O o, o ♦���rr i 0 0 0p oo o`o o 0 i �O 0 0� O Op� 1 O O °O 1 0D 000 1 0 1 O °o 0 00 n oo OO OQ n 0 0 o 00 p Q 000❑❑gA♦ 0 0 n ♦i♦ o o o m o Vii o 0 .0 0 0 0 O a o D.. 0 coo 0 0 Legend d a o an or■ ••r• Existing On -Street Trail o 0000 Proposed On -Street Trail °o ■u■ Existing Off -Street Trail o 0,; Proposed Off -Street Trail p Sidewalks OOOIIQ4000 M O O 000 O O♦ O II OoO O o 500 ,000 soon i I] 0 Il Figure 16: Sidewalks Trails Brooklyn Boulevard Streetstape Amenities Study 22 III. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS element of a project. The point is that, as the Brooklyn Boulevard planning and redevelopment process proceeds, all forces and issues need to be considered and, whenever possible, consideration given to turning constraints into opportunities. The Forces /Issues for Brooklyn Boulevard are summarized in terms of overall, corridor -wide impacts as well as detailed area impacts. Overall Corridor Forces /Issues The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is in a transition phase from being primarily residential to predominantly commercial. This transition, so far, has occured in a piecemeal fashion and on an individual lot -by -lot basis. Following are the primary Forces /Issues (Figure 17), which apply to the Corridor in general: Regional Commercial District. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, which includes the Brookdale Mall at its southern end and a number of large automobile dealerships at its northern end, serves as a regional commercial district. This regional significance is an important attribute, since it represents a large commercial tax base for the City and, by attracting regional shoppers, it presents an opportunity to develop and support additional City and neighborhood- oriented commercial facilities. City/Neighborhood Service Center. Besides the regional significance, Brooklyn Boulevard also serves as a- major service center for the City of Brooklyn Center and many of its residential neighborhoods located along the Corridor. The Boulevard is ideally suited to provide commercial services to the neighborhoods in the western half of the City. However, the commercial services are poorly organized and grouped and do not take advantage of this potential. Regional Circulation Route. The Boulevard serves as an access route from the northwest suburbs to 1 -694 and to Brookdale Mall. The large traffic volumes on Brooklyn Boulevard present a problem as well as an opportunity. The problem is that the traffic is projected to reach 54,000 vehicles a day north of I -694 by the Year 2,010, which is beyond the carrying capacity of the existing four -lane roadway and, therefore, the roadway needs to be widened. The opportunity is presented by the potential to "capture" these potential customers and, in conjuction with the roadway widening, redevelop a segment of the Boulevard. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetstage Amenities Study 23 Gatewa Low Density Reside ntial n Protection (1) I fIIglrDensity M Rcsldedeial Church developm School Office, es mD ua l ry Redeveloi� eat 0) �S C [1 F Commercial ATode 9th AW. ®area Low- Density Aesiden{iat� $Eedevelopment Q) Conversion/Protection (7) Commercial Retail :'I S e. ('.reek Pvk�•9y Uto Road .t .I Major_ Entry: V P 7 t I Open Space /Low Density Resi&ntiai Land Use (T) 0 Pond /Park Ride /RedevelopInt (1) 1 Y Office, scJtool .Office O Reside W Major Entry Low- Density Iidettiial --y M Redevelop tit x. Conversion/ "on (7) 63rd Ave. mercial Node D Trail System a o I Commercial D •1 Low Density idea[ Convers ty iott/rtectio I I Auto:Retall x I nsi Residential tsion /Protection (7) Reed office d OffiGe High De sity Resldenttal �UnderutlllT.e(0$Ite DensityillesWcmial-•'r D nversfoo /Proteetioii (7) gmau /office p office Small -57te LeW�Bens1 ResttieIItlal I raersio Protectton (4 Y D it :ltestdetl ns 3 Resl ntial Prot @ciion O esidenttal z 'I A ti a rill t =t—.�t •y.'�F'O^J OO M'lorEotry li+tii Density_ _C e c Redevelop nt( aee i Residfnual- I,' r n3umdpnat tt Gattwa�+ N.Ah I Ii o 5W t000 2M l Figure 17.• Corridor Forces Issues Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 24 III. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS In order to accommodate the projected volume of traffic, Brooklyn Boulevard needs to be widened to six lanes including additional turn lanes. Hennepin County, in cooperation with the City, has obtained an ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) Grant to widen Brooklyn Boulevard from approximately 64th Avenue to 70th Avenue. The widened roadway will accommodate the projected traffic volumes and it will maintain the access to the regional retail facilities. Planning for the widening has recently started. Land acquisition for the widening will commence in 1995 with the actual roadway reconstruction to begin in 1996. Since the Boulevard widening project will require some land acquisition along the north side of the roadway, this presents the opportunity to redevelop some of the properties in order to improve overall area circula- tion and access to the parcels and to increase the utilization of the properties. Intra -City Circulation Route. Brooklyn Boulevard also is an important local circulation route as well as a link across 1 -694. The Boulevard interconnects many of the City's neighborhoods and it provides the only crossing of 1 -694 in the western half of the City. Brooklyn Boulevard, in conjuction with 58th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway, and 69th Avenue, could -serve as an internal ring road for Brooklyn Center. This loop would connect most of the City neighbor- hoods as well as the majority of civic and commercial facilities. Uncoordinated and Incompatible Land Use Patterns. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor has been undergoing a transformation from predomi- nantly residential to a mixture of various land uses. The interjection of new retail and office developments in various locations along the Corridor on a parcel -by- parcel basis has resulted in a checkerboard pattern of single- family residential, medium- density residential, institutional, office, and service and retail commercial uses. The primary land use issue, because of high traffic volumes and the changing character of the Corridor, is that single- family residential uses are no longer an appropriate land use for Brooklyn Boulevard north of Highway 100. In addition, the many curb cuts required for single- family access are detrimental to the overall traffic circulation in the Corridor. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 25 111. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS A second major issue is the lack of contiguous, clearly identifiable, well defined commercial districts. The lack of definition results in weaker commercial developments and in poorly defined identity for the Corridor commercial uses. Underutilized Parcels. Many parcels along the corridor are partially vacant or poorly utilized and low density developments, such as single- family residential uses, do not take advantage of the commercial potential and exposure that the Corridor offers. Excessive Number of Access Points. The large number of single- family homes and small commercial developments algng the Boulevard require an extraordinary amount of curb cuts and access drives. The result is a reduced level of service for vehicular traffic and many dangerous conflict points along the roadway. 0 Limited Urban Design /Landscaping Enhancements. The public right of -way contains very few urban design amenities, such as benches, litter receptacles, or special features, and there is very little landscaping in the street boulevards and the existing medians. Also, the overhead power line, which is located along most of Brooklyn Boulevard, adds clutter to the visual environment. The lack of amenities and landscaping and the overhead power line contribute to a highly utilitarian and lackluster appearance for the Corridor. Lack of Image /Focus. The Corridor contains very few landmarks or highlights, except for some of the larger commercial buildings and signs, such as those at Brookdale Mall and the automibile dealerships. The Corridor also lacks identification and a sense of place. One can drive through the Corridor without truly understanding which City one is in or how the Corridor relates to the rest of the Brooklyn Center. In summary, because of its central location, underutilized sites, and the large number of people passing through the Corridor each day, the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor has a lot of potential to become a well- coordinated regional, City, and neighborhood- oriented commercial district, but due to poor land utilization, uncoordinated developments, and lack of enhancements or a distinct image, it is not taking advantage of the opportunities. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 26 Ill. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS Detailed Area Forces /Issues Following is a description of the detailed Forces /Issues related to specific locations or parcels along the Corridor. The descriptions begin at the north end and finish at the southern City limits. The detailed Forces /Issues are illustrated in Figures 10 through 13. A potential landscaped median is indicated on the Forces /Issues maps. These medians will be discussed and referred to in section VIII. Improvement Program. North City Limits to 71st Avenue (Figure 10) The land use and area access for the vacant parcel north of Shingle Creek needs to be reevaluated. Gateway at Shingle Creek? Pedestrian crossing for pedestrian trail along Shingle Creek? Single family uses adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard at Wingard Larne. Single- family use, undeveloped parcels, and small residential "pocket" along 71st Avenue. Redevelopment potential? Underutilized corner of Willow Lane School site. Proposed off street trail crossing at 71st Avenue. Overhead power line along east side of roadway. 71st Avenue to 69th Avenue (Figure 10) Small underutilized parcel on Brookdale Methodist Church property. Future office expansion and parking supply /demand status for office buildings? Mixture of small apartment building, single- family houses, and small office building just north of 70th Avenue. Redevelopment potential? I Underutilized i o 1 h n us Church property. s tes n St. A o s C u P Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 27 III. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS Required widening of Brookdale Boulevard on east side will impact area north of 69th Avenue. Redevelopment potential? Size of redevelopment site and buffering for adjoining residential uses? Access? Single- family uses along west side, north of 69th Avenue. Redevelopment potential? Size of redevelopment site and buffering? Access? Status of Phillips 66 service station? Overhead power line along east side of roadway. 69th Avenue to I -694 (Figure 10) Required widening of Brookdale Boulevard on east side will impact area south of 69th Avenue. Redevelopment potential? Reconfiguration of automobile dealer parcels? Access? Need for a stormwater storage pond in this area? Proposed off street trail along south side of roadway. Potential for major entry statement at I -694 Image /Appearance /Safety of pedestrian/bicyclist paths under I -694 needs to be improved. Overhead power line along east side of roadway. I -694 to 63rd Avenue (Figure 11) Proposed stormwater storage pond and MTC Park and -Ride Facility west .of Brooklyn Boulevard, just south of I -694. Single- family uses along east side, south of I -694. Good proximity to and visibility from I -694. Redevelopment potential? Access limitations because of ramps to and from I -694. Redevelopment potential of the Builder's Square site? Future "Town Center" development? Single family uses along west side, north of 63th Avenue. Redevelopment potential? Size of redevelopment site and buffering? Access? Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 28 III. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS Overhead power line along east side of roadway. 63rd Avenue to 58th Avenue (Figures 11 and 12) Single family uses along the east side, south of 63rd Avenue. Redevelop- ment potential? Site size? Access? Future "Town Center" development? Single family uses along the west side, from north of 61st Avenue to Admiral Lane. Redevelopment potential? Site size? Access? Underutilized site around funeral home at 60th Avenue. Use /redevelop- ment? Impacts on residential properties along 60th Avenue from through traffic to Little League ballfields. Impacts from shortcutting traffic on residential properties along 59th Avenue. Single- family uses along the west side, north of 58th Avenue. Redevelop- ment potential? Site size? Access? Overhead power line along east side of roadway. 58th Avenue to Highway 100 (Figure 12) Parking supply /demand status, complex signs, image of commercial area south of 58th Avenue? Land use /redevelopment of single family strip along the west side of frontage road? Screening /buffering for residential area along west side? Landscaping of existing median? Overhead power line along west side of roadway. Highway 100 to southern city limits (Figure 13) Potential for major entry statement at Highway 100. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 29 III. INVENTORY /ANALYSIS Stormwater storage pond at the Highway 100 interchange? Potential new connection from the Highway 100 southwest frontage road to Brooklyn Boulevard. Underutilized site on the east side, north of 51st Avenue. Redevelopment potential of the greenhouse site west of roadway? Through traffic to Minneapolis on 51st Avenue. Redevelopment potential of small greenhouse site east of roadway, south of 51st Avenue. 0 Shortcutting traffic on 50th Avenue. This situation may be improved with the new frontage road connection. Gateway north of 49th Avenue? Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 30 IV. PROJECT GOALS Following is a set of goals for guiding the development of streetscape improve- ments, urban design enhancements, development guidelines and standards, and redevelopment of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. The goals represent a set of interrelated end results which the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to achieve in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. The desired end results will be achieved only if the goals are utilized consistently and comprehensively. All redevelopment proposals should be evaluated to assess how well they satisfy, or fit in with, each and every one of the established goals. This does not mean that each development needs to satisfy each goal one hundred percent. It does mean, however, that development proposals should be evaluated on how well they satisfy the majority of the goals, or whether there are ways to mitigate or improve the proposed developments to achieve the desired end results. 1. Favorable Business Environment The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should have a setting which supports desirable existing businesses and helps stimulate new commercial growth and redevelopment. Brooklyn Boulevard is the primary commercial corridor. in Brooklyn Center. Sound commercial developments along the Corridor provide the Community with commercial services and an expanded tax base. A favorable business setting needs to be maintained in order to keep existing businesses and attract new ones. Desirable commercial developments means all commercial uses which: are permitted under the current zoning ordinance, provide services for the Community or the adjoining neighborhoods, support the financial objec- tives of the City, and are not detrimental to other corridor goals. 2. Well Defined and Screened Residential Neighborhoods Viable residential neighborhoods along or adjoining the Brooklyn Boule- vard Corridor should be well defined and screened from adverse impacts. Brooklyn Boulevard StreetsMpe Amenities Study 31 IV. PROJECT COALS Viable residential neighborhoods means residential areas or districts which are located in a suitable residential environment, are not impacted by adverse conditions, and are not a blighting influence on the surrounding residential districts or other uses along the Corridor. The residential neighborhoods, whether low density or multi -unit, should be well defined and screened from adverse impacts. Since high volume traffic arteries are not recommended environments for single family uses, portions of Brooklyn Boulevard which carry large volumes of,traffic are not suitable settings for single family dwellings. 3. Comprehensive Area Access and Circulation System The Brooklyn Boulevard circulation system should accommodate all preferred modes of transportation and should provide convenient access and circulation for all desirable uses along the Corridor. Preferred modes of transportation includes means of transportation, besides automobiles, which the Community wishes to support, such as buses, trolleys, vans, bicycles, and pedestrian circulation. 4. Capacity to Accommodate Regional Traffic Brooklyn Boulevard should be able to accommodate regional traffic circulation needs through the Corridor. Regional traffic using the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor provides exposure and patrons for the corridor businesses. It is important to accommodate regional traffic needs, in order to minimize congestion and negative impacts on local traffic and to maximize the potential for access to local businesses. 5. Enhanced Visual Environment The visual environment along Brooklyn Boulevard should help project a positive image for the Corridor and the City. The Corridor should serve aesthetic as well as functional needs. An enhanced Brooklyn Boulevard image and appearance will not only help improve the business environment along the Corridor; it will also make the City a more enjoyable place in which to live and do business in. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 32 V. FRAMEWORK PLAN The planning for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor was conducted at two scales: (1) at a corridor -wide scale; and (2) at detailed scales for streetscape enhance- ments, special theme elements, redevelopment guidelines, and selected site redevelopment case studies. This section presents the recommended Framework Plan for the Corridor. The detailed plans are presented in the following sections. The recommended Framework Plan represents responses to the forces and issues identified in the analysis and to the goals established for the Corridor. The recommendations included in the Framework Plan and the detailed plans are meant to be general guidelines for setting direction and initiating action. They are not intended to be final designs which should be implemented exactly as conceived. Circumstances change and therefore plans need to change. No plan should ever be considered absolute or final. Since this plan may be implemented over a period of 20 years, elements con- structed at the end of this 20 -year period may require modification from the ones installed earlier. The hope is that even if details are changed, the major concepts recommended in the Framework Plan will be preserved and will help shape the overall form and image of the Corridor. The recommended Framework Plan (Figure 18) identifies the key concepts for redeveloping Brooklyn Boulevard. Following is an outline of the major recom- mendations for the Corridor, which are discussed in greater detail in the rest of the report: 1. Remove Single -Family Residential All single family residential units north of Highway 100 which abut the Brooklyn Boulevard right -of -way should be removed. 2. Establish Clearly Defined Land Use Districts. Developments should be grouped to establish districts with a predominant character and purpose and with appropriate edge treatments to buffer the districts from the adjoining single- family residential uses. In general, the Brookiyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 33 City Trail Alon g Galeway� Shingle- C-reell_ H� Detts►ty t Residential Church School_ h Drnsity ,a rsidcntial Neighborhood Cogunercial Nodes G9thA saa.�as 4,. tit"+ —ata- --rasa Trail Along Marker Boulevard A.I. Retail 'Y pnrkw•rY ('reek A4ao Rrlail Major Entry Commercial Open Space /Pond /Pat�c d Ride `0 or Commercial 0 OIDCe 8 school 9 4tWh �ns11Y Town Cent4 Neighborhood Ra idenml C ,IaWixcd Ux Node Major Entry High Density Rc)Vdenlial Town Center x G3rd Avc. p Ftxal Feature a aadaw.. aAa ®�ae� ®�o�rs��YY rrir�r�iiAerer q•. Trall System rTosvit'Center'l r RRH t�i De lenti�n CRerslal Brooklyn .Cetl�e: RiagRoad 9 Church atl p 011ice COR6inefCliap lltd�Rhborhood CaaY�ntmnee rcialN c x Sake ode` lagttR>oF11R/t>tt -ofikv Rasideatigl �4 U 6 MTjorEntry is High Density Re �ieitttal Legend Predominant tt ®t try Rcridennal land Use District 6' tn.tuotiorud Existing Use Gity Gateway to Remain Proposed Redevelopment •i r h o ta m 2M ORB Figure 18: Framework Plan Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 34 V. FRAMEWORK PLAN following land use groupings or districts are recommended for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor: Commercial Core. The central segment of the Corridor between 58th Avenue and 69th Avenue should be predominantly commer- cial. Within this commercial core, neighborhood commercial nodes should be established at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue, and 69th Avenue. The 63rd Avenue commercial node could be developed as a "Town Center" and /or as a focal area for the Corridor. Medium Density Residential Edge Segments. The southern edge segment, between Highway 100 and 58th Avenue, and the northern edge segment, between 69th and the northern city limits, should be predominantly medium to high density residential. Brookdale Mall is a major exception in this district. Single -Family South of Highway 100. The segment south of Highway 100 should remain, for now, predominantly single- family residential. The purpose for establishing predominant use districts is to consolidate developments into more compatible land use patterns and to strengthen the commercial core area. The intent is, instead of allowing commercial developments to occur all along the Corridor, to consolidate most of the commercial uses, as much as P ossible, in the core area in order to establish a clearly identifiable and marketable core retail district. It is understood that some mixing of uses will occur and that none of the districts will be purely one use or another. Some mixed -use or multi -use developments, in fact, may be desirable, but the key idea here is "predom- inant use meaning that the largest proportion of uses should fit the overall district classification. 3. Increase the Land Use, Intensity. Development and land use intensities should be increased in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor in order to take advantage of the favorable location and access characteristics of the Corridor and to increase the commercial tax base of the City. Every effort should be made to promote the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 35 V. FRAMEWORK PLAN development of higher- density retail, office, and residential uses in the Corridor. 4. Accommodate Regional as well as Local Traffic. The roadway should be monitored and, if necessary, upgraded to accom- modate changing regional as well local vehicular traffic demands. Access is one of the key ingredients for successful com- mercial developments and therefore, if Brooklyn Boule- vard is to become a viable and vibrant commercial district, a good roadway system needs lo be maintained. The current widening project of Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -694 needs to be completed, and continuous evaluations of the rest of Brooklyn Boulevard should be conducted on an ongoing basis to quickly identify traffic problems or issues and to correct them as soon as possible. Another way in which traffic operations could be improved is by reducing the number of curb cuts and driveway access points. This should be accomplished through the removal of single family residential uses and through the elimination or consolidation of driveways as properties are upgraded or redeveloped. Another component of the circulation system is paths for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Although Brooklyn Boulevard itself is not viewed as a primary pedestian or bicyclist route, pedestrians and bicyclists need to be accommodated. A sidewalk should be provided on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard and the segment between 66th Avenue and 69th Avenue should include an off -road bicycle path on the west side of the roadway, in order to complete the north -south trail system which is located along Upper Twin Lake and Lee Avenue. 5. Enhance the General Physical Environment. The physical environment enhancement program should include removal of unsightly elements, such as overhead power lines, and installation of comprehensive urban design and landscaping treatments including transit shelters, benches, litter receptacles, general landscaping, and special intersection improvements. The overall enhancement program should also Brooklyn Boulevard streetscape Amenities study 36 V. FRAMEWORK PLAN include site improvements on private properties in the Brookly Boulevard Corridor. 6. Develop Special Theme Treatments. Special theme treatments should be developed to provide the Brooklyn Boulevard segment in Brooklyn Center with a unique identity and image. This will help upgrade the overall appearance of the community and it will assist in improving the identity of the Brooklyn Boulevard commercial district. The special theme elements should include gateways at the ends of the Boulevard, entry treatments at Highway 100 and at I -694, corridor markers at 58th Avenue and at 69th Avenue, and a major focal feature in conjunction with the proposed "Town Center" at 63rd Avenue. As part of the special identity program, the central segment of Brooklyn Boulevard between 58th Avenue and 69th Avenue, along with segments of 58th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue, should be designated as the "City Ring Road". The purpose of this would be to create an easily identifiable link between the major City civic and com- mercial facilities and to promote a special, City- centered circulation system, rather than treating major roadways merely as thoroughfares through the City. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 37 V1. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS The streetscape enhancement plan addresses four items: existing elements, streetscape configuration and landscaping, streetscape lighting, and street furniture and special features or treatments. In developing the streetscape enhancement plan, a number of options and alternatives were investigated. Following is a discussion of each of the streetscape components as well as the recommended Streetscape Enhancement Plan. Streetscape Components Existing Elements The existing streetscape contains very few urban design elements which would impact the development of the streetscape plan. The one item which has a significant impact is the existing overhead utility power lines, which extend virtually for the whole length of the Corridor. The power lines detract from the visual appearance of the Corridor and they restrict the planting of large street trees. The recommendation is to remove all overhead power lines in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. Streetscape Configuration and Landscaping The streetscape enhancements can be arranged in a number of different configura- tions. Items to be evaluated in streetscape configuration include: side- walk/boulevard location, street light location, street tree arrangement, and median configuration. Figure 19 illustrates two options for streetscape configuration, which have the following characteristics: Alternative A The landscaping boulevard is located adjacent to the curb with the sidewalk next to the street right-of-way., The boulevard trees are evenly spaced along the Boulevard. The street lights are located in the landscape boulevard. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 38 a f g S Alternative A T i S w L r 10' Landscaping &°scntcrtt Alternative B Figure 19: Streetscape Configurations Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 39 VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS A landscaped median is introduced where left-turn lanes are not required and the median is configured with two back -to -back turn lanes. Alternative B The sidewalk is located behind the curb with a narrow landscaping strip adjacent to the street right -of -way. The boulevard trees are grouped in clusters. This creates a more interest- ing streetscape and it minimizes uneven appearances where trees can not be planted because of driveways, or if trees get damaged or diseased and have to be removed. The street lights are located behind the curb. In this alternative the street lights could be located behind the sidewalk along the property line. This would require a longer arm for the street lights; A landscaped median is introduced where left -turn lanes are not required. The median is configured with a single left -turn lane. The recommendation is to use a combination of the two options including: landscaped boulevards behind the curbs; sidewalks adjacent to property lines; landscaped medians (the landscaped medians are indicated in Fig ures 10 through 13); clustered groupings of trees; and single left -turn lanes. In addition to the general street landscaping, a number of other areas should receive special landscaping screens and treatments. The areas identified for special treatments are between Highway 100 and. 58th Avenue, where special landscaped treatments should be used to enhance the overall corridor image and screen the residential areas on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. Streetscape Lighting For streetscape lighting a number of alternatives and designs were evaluated (Figure 20). Two types of lights were considered: street lights and pedestrian lights. Street Lights. The two major choices to make in selecting street lights are the design of the light fixture and the light spacing. A key consider- ation in deciding on street lights is the cost and the maintenance of the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 40 i I 1 I 400* LAW r A B C A B C D (Existing) (Existing) Street Lighting Options Pedestrian Lighting Options Figure 20: Streetscape Lighting Alternatives .v 4 I ry Intersection Option A Intersection Option B Intersection Option C Intersection Option D Figure 21: Intersection Treatment Alternatives Brooklyn Boulevard streetscape Amenities study 41 VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS fixtures. The City anticipates that the street lights will be maintained by NSP and therefore they will need to meet NSP standards. Street light fixture A (Figure 20), which is a basic "hatbox" fixure with a shroud attachment on a 30 -foot pole, was selected by the Task Force as the preferred street light design. This is a relatively simple light fixture and it is anticipated, based upon preliminary investigations, that NSP will approve it. In terms of street light spacing, the two choices are: uniform spacing along the whole length of the Boulevard or varying spacing, depending upon the significance of the roadway segment. Since the intent, as discussed in the Framework Plan section, is to place special emphasis on the central commercial core segment of the Corridor, having more frequent and intense lighting in the central segment would reinforce the overall concept for the Corridor of providing varying levels of treatments. The recommendation is to use the Style A street light fixture and to install the tight fixtures at a more fre- quent spacing (approximately 150 feet on center) in the central, core commercial area including the Brookdale Mall area, between Highway 100 and 69th Avenue, and at a less frequent spacing (approximately 300 feet on center) in the rest of the Corridor. Pedestrian Lights. In addition to street lights, pedestrian lighting was evaluated. The choices are: provide pedestrian lighting along the whole length of the Corridor; provide pedestrian lighting only at intersections and special areas; or include no pedestrian lighting in the streetscape. Although Brooklyn Boulevard will not be a primary pedestrian circulation area, it is believed that some pedestrian -scale lighting, especially where pedestrians from the adjoining neighborhoods access the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, would be appropriate. From the options considered (Figure 20), the Task Force selected Type B as the preferred pedestrian scale light. This light fixture is similar to the type used in the Earl Brown Heritage Center area. The recommendation is to use the Type B pedestrian tight fixture at intersections and in special areas to provide emphasis and pedestrian -level lighting. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 42 VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS Street Furniture and Special Features The primary areas where pedestrian amenities and special features would have a functional purpose in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor are at the street intersec- tions and in special areas, such as the "Town Center". A number of options for intersection treatments were investigated (Figure 21). Consideration was given to various pavement treatments including special pavers. Because of the large, automobile- oriented scale of the Corridor, it was concluded by the Task Force that using special pavers would be wasteful, but that including pedestrian lighting and special landscaping accents at the intersections would be appropriate. The recommendation is to use a modified version of Option D for intersection treatments and to include pedestrian amenities, such as transit shelters, benches, and litter receptacles, only at the transit stops. In addition, the intersection treatments should include extensive use of evergreen landscaping materi- als, which will provide a strong visual emphasis and will help to "green up" the Corridor. Recommended Streetscape Enhancement Plan The recommended Streetscape Enhancement Plan (Figure 22) is a composite illustration of all the recommendations regarding streetscape enhancements and intersection improvements for Brooklyn Boulevard. The intersection enhancements will have to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis and, depending upon the individual site circumstances or restrictions, such as sight line requirements, existing private development landscaping, or other factors, may have to be modified. Also, in order to implement the intersection enhancements, landscaping easements may have to be obtained from the adjoining property owners. It is anticipated, based upon the concept design, that typically, a 20 foot by 20 foot landscaping easement may be required. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 43 6.► b 4 -Y rt" z `7 it �0 t' i F NO r V11. SPECIAL THEME ELEMENTS Special theme elements refers to those features which will help provide Brooklyn Boulevard with a unique identity and image. As was discussed in the Framework Plan section, special theme elements include: gateways, entry treatments, corridor markers, and a major focal feature. Design Theme Alternatives In order to provide a theme that identifies Brooklyn Boulevard as a part of Brooklyn Center, the theme has to be unique and it has to have a strong relation- ship to Brooklyn Center. The first step in selecting a theme for Brooklyn Center was to explore a number of design in order g p d to identify the types of design treatments that would be available for Brooklyn Boulevard. The choices basically range from historical to traditional to modern, and virtually any one of these design themes could be adapted for Brooklyn Boulevard. The issue with general design themes is that they are widely used and, unless they have a distinct local reference or they are developed in a'very unusual way that creates an individual statement, they may not be effective in providing the desired identity. The second step in deciding on a theme was to explore and identify unique features or elements, existing or historical, that could be used in developing a design theme for Brooklyn Boulevard. The conclusion of this exploration was that the strongest, or most memorable, design theme that exists in Brooklyn Center is the Earl Brown Farm theme which has been very successfully adapted in the redeveloped Earl Brown Heritage Center complex (Figure 23). This theme is unique to Brooklyn Center and it currenty forms the most memorable impres- sion of the City. After exploring a few traditional and modern options it was concluded that the "Earl Brown Theme" would be the most appropriate and unique for Brooklyn Boulevard. By introducing this theme on Brooklyn Boulevard and potentially in other areas of the City, the theme treatments would reinforce each other and provide a unified and distinct theme for Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 45 +13 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 ''I q w r«:: r.: Y 1 1 1 1 Ilk li I *w I 1 I I L t a 1 VII. SPECIAL THEME ELEMENTS The recommendation is to adapt the "Earl Brown Heritage Center Theme" for Brooklyn Boulevard as well as for other major thoroughfares the n g es m e City, in order to give the segment of Brooklyn Boulevard which is in Brooklyn Center a stronger identity and to reinforce the development of a distinct and unified overall image for Brooklyn Center. Definition of Theme Elements A concept for the theme elements along Brooklyn Boulevard is illustrated in Figure 24. The images represent a general idea which will need to be refined at the time of implementation. The design for the special theme elements is adapted from the "Earl Brown Heritage Center Theme The general concept for designing the theme elements is to use heavy timbers and metal connectors to replicate the heavy timber construction used in the gates and fences at the Earl Brown Farm. Where needed, such as in the bus shelters or the Corridor Focal Feature, metal roofs would reflect the shapes used for barns and weather vanes could be used as accents and decorations. Rough stone cast in concrete, such as is seen in old rural structures, could be used for bases and foundations. Extensive use of landscape materials and, especially, evergreens will recall the natural environment of the Farm. Extensive and consistant use of" evergreen material along Brooklyn Boulevard will help to "green up" the Corridor and provide year -round color. Following is a brief description of the intent of the theme elements and general guidelines for further refinement: 1. City Gateways The Framework Plan identifies two gateways for Brooklyn Boulevard: one at the northern and the other at the southern city limits. The gateways will demarcate the entry points to the City as well as to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. Similar gateways could be used at other entries to the City to reinforce the overall theme. The gateways are envisioned as a segment of a gate with a sign board suspended from a cantilevered bracket. The construction would include heavy metal plates, angles, and bolts. The foundation could be cast Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 47 I:r f City Gateway Freeway Entry I w 4 r 1 Corridor Marker Focal Feature Figure 24: Recommended Theme Elements Brooklyn Boulevard Steeetseape Amenities Study 48 VII. SPECIAL THEME ELEMENTS concrete with embedded, rough -split field stones or granite blocks. The edges of the roadway are defined with wood fences; spruces or pines are used for emphasis and definition. 2. Freeway Entries Two freeway entries have been identified: one at Highway 100 and one at I -694. Besides the gateways, the freeway entries also serve to welcome travelers to the City. The intention is that the freeway entries, perform a similar function as the gateways except that they would be designed differently, due to the different environments. The freeway interchanges are much more expansive and the treatments will have to be bolder and larger. The freeway entries will depend primarily on longer fence segments and larger massing of evergreens to create the entry statements. In each quadrant of the intersection, fences with rows of evergreens will define the transition from the highway to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. An entry sign, similar to City Gateway signs, may be included at the termina- tion of the fence on the entry legs of the freeway ramps to the Boulevard. 3. Corridor Markers Whereas the City Gateways demarcate the entries to the City, the Corridor Markers anounce that the traveler has arrived at the commercial core. The markers would be an adaptation of a complete gate with a sign board which could provide directions to major features or facilities in Brooklyn Center. The primary functions of the Markers would be as symbols and as decorative elements. The construction and materials would be similar to the City Gateways, except that the Markers might include more flowers and ornamental shrubs. 4. Focal Feature The most significant of the theme elements will be the Focal Feature. The Focal Feature for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is envisioned as a structure or large monument which would define the core or "the central place" along Brooklyn Boulevard. The intention is that the Focal Feature be developed in conjunction with a redevelopment project and that, ideally, it serve more than just a symbolic function. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 49 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Improvement Program for Brooklyn Boulevard involves many items and it will have to be implemented over a number of years. Following is a description of the recommended staging of the public improvements and the estimated costs. Improvement Staging The Improvement Staging Plan (Figure 25) identifies the recommended streetscape enhancement and special theme element public improvements in the Brooklyn Boulevard right -of -way and the sequencing for implementing them. In addition to the improvements shown in the Plan, there are two other projects currently in the planning stages: The widening of Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -694 The development of the storm water retention pond and MTC Park -and- Ride Facility just south of I -694 In addition, the City may choose, in the future, to do additional public improve- ments associated with private parcel redevelopment. The Improvement Staging Plan identifies the improvement segments and the staging phases. Improvement Segments The improvement segments define sections of the roadway with similar character istics and levels of improvement. The segment characteristics relate to the intensity of adjacent land uses and significance in the Corridor. The types of improvement vary, based upon the desired level of treatments for the roadway. This definition of levels of improvement will be significant for the implementation of future phases. If the available funding for future phases will not permit the levels of improvements proposed in the Plan, the improvements could be scaled back. The scaling back, however, should be done proportionately so that the relative levels of improvement, among the different segments, stays the same. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 50 l �i f Y a a 4 �y(ybri yy fIx� c ilia Entry' t At To" Qedfte t t g f FEgattttc y A s r r. p�IalS1 1 r i 1 g7T3nty Road 10 _sss k✓ t SpeGht r 2 I t a ji y r rt a' =Spe f=� r t $en Hi I;, 1 4 x t Legend t n,,--1Corridor ®0 Intersection on Enhancements M Existing Median Landscaping Only Narrow Median Wide Median with Landscaping CCa Special Landscaping 0 goo 1000. 20M R Figure 25: Improvement Staging Plan Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 51 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The recommended improvements for the segments are as follows: Segment A This segment, from 69th Avenue to the northern city limits, is designated as a primarily medium- to high- density residential district. The recom- mended improvements include: Street lights at approximately 300 feet on center, each side of the street. Construction of landscaped medians. Landscaped boulevards. Street intersection enhancements at 69th Avenue (north side), 70th Avenue (east side), and 71st Avenue. A City Gateway at Shingle Creek. Segment B This segment, from 58th Avenue to 69th Avenue, is designated as the core commercial district. This segment should receive the maximum level of enhancements in order to support the redevelopment efforts and to create a strong focal area. The recommended improvement include: Street lights at approximately 150 feet on center, each side of the street. Construction of landscaped medians south of 65th Avenue and landscaping of the medians north of 65th Avenue, which will be constructed as part of the road widening project. Landscaped boulevards. Street intersection enhancements at 58th Avenue (north side), Admiral Lane (west side), 59th Avenue (east side), 61st Avenue (west side), 62nd Avenue, 63rd Avenue, 65th Avenue, 68th i Avenue (west side) and 69th Avenue (south side). Corridor n h Avenue. Markers at 58th Avenue and at 69t Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 52 Vill. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A Major Entry at I -694. The Corridor Focal Feature at 63rd Avenue. Segment C This segment, from Highway 100 to 58th Avenue, is designated as a primarily medium- to high- density residential district. An exception in this segment is Brookdale Mall on the east side of the roadway. The recommended improvements include: Street lights at approximately 150 feet on center, each side of the street. Landscaping of the existing medians. Landscaped boulevards. Intersection enhancements at 55th Avenue, 56th Avenue (east side), and 58th Avenue (south side). Special landscaping treatments (low shrubs and groupings of evergreen trees) along the east side of the roadway between Highway 100 and 56th Avenue and along the west side, in front of the commercial uses just north of Northrop Drive, in order to enhance the corridor image. Special landscaping screening (tall shrubs, ornamental trees, and groupings of evergreen) along the west side of the roadway between Highway 100 and 58th Avenue, except for the segment in front of the commercial uses, in order to buffer the residential uses from the roadway. A Major Entry at Highway 100 (north side). Segment D This segment, from the southern city limits to Highway 100, is designated as a primarily low- density residential destrict. This segment has a different character from the rest of the Corridor since the adjoining residential uses contain abundant landscaping. The recommended im- provements include: Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 53 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Street lights at approximately 300 feet on center, each side of the street. Landscaping of the existing median just south of Highway 100. A City Gateway just north of 49th Avenue. Improvement Cost Estimate Following is a preliminary cost estimate of the proposed streetscape improve- ments. The costs are estimated in 1994 dollars. The costs are presented by improvement phases which relate to logical segments of how the improvements might be staged. Thus, Phase 1 includes the segment of Brooklyn Boulevard which will be improved as part of the roadway widening project, as well as the major theme elements which are deemed essential for establishing a theme for the Corridor. Phases 2, 3, and 4 reflect the sequencing based upon significance for completing the Brooklyn Boulevard improvement program. Table 1 provides unit costs for the different types of treatments per lineal foot or by area; Table 2 provides detailed costs for each of the phases and a summary of all improvement costs. The preliminary cost estimate indicates that Phase 1 improvements will cost approximately 1,000,000 and the total Brooklyn Boulevard right -of -way improvements will be approximately 2,700,000. In addition to the streetscape improvement costs, funding will be required to remove the overhead power lines. A preliminary estimate by NSP, for removal of all the overhead power lines in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, indicates costs of up to 1,000,000. Further discussions with NSP need to be held to refine these costs and to finalize funding programs and implementation. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 54 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 1 Preliminary Cost Estimate Improvement Components UNIT ITEM NO.I ITEM I UNITbUANT. COT I OF ROAD OR AREA A -1. STREET LIGHTS 300' O.C. EACH 0.007 $3,450.00 $23.00 PER L.F. (2 LIGHTS 300 L.F.) A 2. STREET LIGHTS a 150' O.C. EACH 0.013 $3,450.00 $46.00 PER L.F. (2 LIGHTS 150 L.F.) B. BOULEVARD ENHANCEMENTS 1 IU�MOVAE9_ -TXMT. WALK 5' 10 $0.50 $5.00 PER (10 S.F. L.F.) 2 II (2 S F. ELF )4" CONCR.WALK 6' L.F. I 12 I $2.50 $30.00 PER L.F. 3 I (2 TREES O 40' O.C. I L.F. I 0.05 I $300.00 $15.00 PER L.F. 4 I l OD REPLACEMENT F EMENT I S.F. I 12 I $0.25 I $3.00 PER L.F. B. TOTAL $53.00 PER L.F. C. MEDIANS LANDSCAPING ONLY 1 GRADING I S.F. i 18 $0.25 $4.50 PER L.F. (18 S.F. L.F.) I 2 MEDIAN APRON 4" CONCR. 2' S.F. 4 $2.50 $10.00 PER L.F. (4 S.F. L.F.) 3 I TREE E 340 40' O.C. L. I F. 0.025 $300.00 $7.50 PER L.F. 4 SOD 16 $0.25 I $4.00 PER L.F. I_ 06 S.F. l 1..F.1 C. TOTAL $26.00 PER L.F. I D. MEDIANS -NARROW (6' WIDE) 1 I S A L F U'MNG EXIST. PAV99ENT -I�_ 2 $6.00 $12.00 PEI�L.F. 2 REMOVALS EXIST. PAVEMENT I S.F. I 8 $0.50 I $4.00 PER L.F. (8 S.F. L.F.) 3 CURB- AND GUTTER B612 L.F. 2 $8.00 $16.00 PER L.F. 1 S2 L.F. L.F.)) 4 MEM AR 4" CORM. S.F. 5 $2.50 $12.50 PERT 5 S.F. L.F.) 1 5 I MISCELL. SIGNS, STRIPING L.F. 1 $0.50 I $0.50 PER L.F. D. TOTAL $45.00 PER L.F. I Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 55 i VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 1 (Continued) I COST/ L.F. UNIT ITEM L F NO. ITEM UNITbUANT. I COST I OF ROAD OR AREA E. MEDIANS WIDE (20'WIDE) 1 SAWCUTTING, EXIST. PAVEMENT I L.F. 2 $6.00 $12.00 PER L.F. 2 I� S OV ALS E"XI�T. PANT 22 $0.50 $11.00 I 3 I C2 CURB-AND- B612 I L.F. I 2 I $8.00 I $16.00 PER L.F. 4 MEDIAN APRON- 4" CONC. 2' S.F. 4 '$2.50 $10.00 PER L.F. 49 5 S 3" CAL. 40' O.C. E C14 0.025 1 $300.00 1 $7.50 (1 TREE 40 L.F.) 6 SOD S.F. I 16 $0.25 I $4.00 PER L.F. (16 S.F. L.F.) E. TOTAL $60.50 PER L.F. F. INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS (4 Q 1 I S R AMENTQ A LIIGHHS( ED.) EACH 8 $3,500.00 $28,000.00 PER INT. i 2 WOOD FENCE THEME L.P. 80 $40.00 1 $3,200.00 PER INT. (20 L.F. QUADRANT) EV 3 I T S ERGREEN, 12 16' HT. LEACH 12 $400.00 $4,800.00 PER INT. 4 SHRUBS AND FLOWERS I L.S. 1 $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00 PER INT. F. TOTAL $38,000.00 PER INT. G. CITY GATEWAYS 1 1 ENTRY SIGN EACH 1 1 $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 PER AREJ (INCL. BASE LIGHTING) 2 TREES EVERGREEN, 12' -16' HT. EACH 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 PER ARE 3 SMWI;S AN ks L.S. 1 1 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 PER AREA G. TOTAL $20,000.00 PER AREE Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 56 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 1 (Continued) UNIT ITEM COST /L.F. NO. ITEM I UNIT DUANT. COST I OF ROAD OR AREA H. CORRIDOR MARKERS 1 CORRIDOR MARKER EACH 1 1 $20,000.00 I $20,000.00 PER ARE 2 i S BASE &LIGH N, RG12'-16' HT. A�� 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 PER A RE I 3 I SHRUBS AND FLOWERS L.S. 1 1 $2 I $2,600.00 PER AREA L H. TOTAL $25,000.00 PER ARSE I. MAJOR ENTRIES HWY. (4 QUADRANTS) 1 GRADING SEEDING L.S. 1 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 PER ENTI21 2 E NTRY SIGN SI NT) (EACH 4 $15,000.00 $60,000.00 PER ENTI2I 3 FENCE THEME TREATMENT L.F. 480 $40.00 $19,200.00 PER ENTR (120 L.F. OUADRANT) 4 TREES EVERGREEN, 12' -16' HT. EACH 40 1 $400.00 1 $16,000.00 PER ENTRY (10 TREES OUADRANT) JII I. TOTAL $100,000.00 PER ENT]i J. "TOWN CENTER" FOCAL FEAT. 1 FOCAL FEATURE L. S. 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 PER AREJ J. TOTAL $100,000.00 PER AREA K. SPECIAL LANDSC. ENHANC. 1 1 SHRUBS SHRUB L.F.. INCL. I RRIG. L.F. 1 $30.00 $30.00 PER L.F. K. TOTAL $30.00 PER L.F. i L. SPECIAL LANDSC. SCREENS i 1 SHRUBS I L.F. 1 2 $30.00 1 $60.00 PER L.F. (2 SHRUBS L.F.. INCL. IRRIG.) L. TOTAL $60.00 PER L.F. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 57 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 2 Preliminary Cost Estimate Development Phases and Summary UNIT NO.I ITEM I UNIT bUANT. COST ITEM COST I PHASE 1 (SEGMENT A) A -1 STREET LIGHTS 300' O.C. I L.F. 1 3,000 $23.00 $69,000.00 LE'VMM ENHAA CEMEgTS FUT 3,000 1 $53.00 $159,000.00 D MEDIAN NARROW (6' WIDE) I L.F. 1,000 $45.00 $45,000.00 E MEDIAN WIDE (20' WIDE) L.F. 1,500 I $60.50 $90,750.00 F INTERSECTION A EA-T1 2 $38,000.00 $76,000.00 G CITY GATEWAY EACH 1 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 PHASE 1 (SEGMENT A) TOTAL $459,750.00 II PHASE 1 (SEGM. B PARTIAL) A -2 STREET LIGHTS 150' 0. C. L.F. 3,400 1 $46.00 $156,400.00 B I BOULEVARD ENHANCEM. I L.F. 2,600 $53.00 $137,800.00 C MEDIAN LANDSC. ONLY L.F. I 1,300 $26.00 $33,800.00 F INTERSECTION ENHANCEM. EACHI 1.5 $38,000.00 $57,000.00 H CORRIDOR MARKER IEACHI 1 $25,000.00 1 $25,000.00 I MAJOR ENTRY HWY. (EACH 1 I $100,000.00 $100,000.00 PHASE 1 (SEGM. B PART.) TOTAL $510,000.00 i PHASE 1 (A B PART.) TOTAL $969,750.00 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 58 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 2 (Continued) UNIT NO.I ITEM IUNITbUANT.I COST ITEM COST III PHASE 2 (SEGMENT B PARTIAL) A -2 STREET LIGHTS 150' O.C. L.F. 4,800 $46.00 $220,800.00 EVARD EPAA CEM. FL 4,800 $53.00 $254,400.00 D MEDIAN NARROW (6' WIDE) I L.F. I 1,300 $45.00 $58,500.00 E MEDIAN WIDE (20' WIDE) L.F. I 1,500 $60.50 $90,750.00 INTERSECTTOITLWR EACH 5 $38,000.00 5190,000.00 H CORRIDOR MARKER EACHI 1 $25,000.00 1 $25,000.00 J I "TOWN CENTER" FOCAL FEAT. (EACH 1 $100,000.00 I $100,000.00 PHASE 2 (SEGM. B PART.) TOTAL $939,450.00 IV PHASE 3 (SEGMENT C) A -2 STREET LIGHTS Q 150' 0. C. L.F. 3,600 $46.00 $165,600.00 B BOULEVARD ENHANCEMENTS L.F. I 3,200 $53.00 1 $169,600.00 i C MEDIAN LANDSCAPING ONLY L.F. 2,000 $26.00 $52,000.00 F INTERSECTION ENHANCEM. EACH 2 1 $38,000.00 $76,000.00 I MAJOR ENTRY HIGHWAY EACH 0.5 $100,000.00 1 $50,000.00 K SPECIAL LANDSC. ENHANCEM. L.F. 1,300 $30.00 $39,000.00 I L SPECIAL LANDSC. SCREEN L.F. 2,400 $60.00 $144,000.00 PHASE 3 (SEGMENT C) TOTAL $696,200.00 i V PHASE 4 (SEGMENT D) I �A -1 I STREET LIGHTS 300' 0. C. L.F. 2,000 $23.00 I $46,000.00 i i I C MEDIAN LANDSC. ONLY L.F. 600 $26.00 $15,600.00 G I CITY GATEWAY EACH 1 1 $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 I MAJOR ENTRY HIGHWAY EACH 0.5 $50,000.00 PHASE 4 (SEGMENT D) TOTAL $131,600.00 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 59 VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 2 (Continued) UNIT NO.I ITEM I UNIT bUANT. COT COST A V LKAIib SUMMARY BY PHASE COST PER L.F. PHASE 1 (A B PART.) TOTAL L.F. 6,400 $152.00 $969,750 PHASE 2 (SEGM. B PART.) TOTAL L.F. 4,800 $196.00 $939,450 PHASE 3 (SEGMENT C) TOTAL L.F. 3,200 $218.00 $696,200 PHASE 4 (SEGMENT D) TOTAL L.F. 2,000 $66.00 $131,600 GRAND TOTAL L.F. 16,400 $167.00 $2,737,000 SUMMARY BY ITEM TOTAL OF AMOUNT TOTAL A -1 STREET LIGHTS 300'0.C. $115,000 4% A -2 STREET LIGHTS 150' 0. C. I $542,800 20% f B BOULEVARD ENHANCEM. $720,800 26% C MEDIAN LANDSC. ONLY I I $101,400 4% D MEDIAN NARROW (6' WIDE) I 103,500 4% I E MEDIAN WIDE (20' WIDE) I $181,500 7% F INTERSECTION ENHANCEM. I $399,000 15% I G CITY GATEWAY I $40,000 1 H CORRIDOR MARKER i $50,000 2% I I MAJOR ENTRY HIGHWAY I $200,000 7 J "TOWN CENTER" FOCAL FEAT. $100,000 4% K SPECIAL LANDSC. ENHANCEM. I I $39,000 1 L L SPECIAL LANDSC. SCREEN $144,000 5% GRAND TOTAL $2,737,000 100% Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 60 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM A second major component of the Brooklyn Boulevard upgrading program, besides the public streetscape improvements, is the redevelopment of private properties in the Corridor. The public improvement program and the private redevelop ment efforts should be treated as a related set of tools which complement and reinforce each other. Redevelopment Issues In redeveloping properties in the Corridor, three key issues need to be addressed: The size and shape of the property to be redeveloped The program and pattern for redevelopment Development guidelines for redevelopment Size and Shape of Redevelopment Parcels In the Inventory /Analysis section a detailed evaluation was presented of all the parcels along the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor which should be or might be considered for redevelopment. The two key issues in most of the cases is how large the redevelopment parcels should be and how they should relate to the adjoining uses. In terms of size and shape of parcels, the two key consider- ations in redeveloping properties in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should be to: 0 Assemble parcels which are large enough to permit higher- density developments and reasonable access and circulation patterns; and Identify desirable boundaries between the proposed developments and existing adjoining land uses. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 61 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Currently, Brooklyn Center has the one -acre minimum lot size requirement for redevelopment. This is a good tool, but larger development parcels might be more desirable and more marketable. Also, changing land uses along back property lines is preferable, in most cases, over changing uses across streets. This is especially applicable if single family uses are invoved. Program and Pattern for Redevelopment Redevelopment Program The program or types of uses which should be considered will vary based upon the location and market forces. As is recommended in the Framework Plan, the central segment of Brooklyn Boulevard should be developed primarily as a commercial district with the rest of the Corridor to be developed for either higher- density residential or, south of Highway 100, for single family residential. More specifically, the Framework Plan includes recommendations that neighbor hood- oriented commercial uses be developed at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue, and 69th Avenue. It would be in the City's interest to steer developments in these three areas to include at least some neighborhood service and retail facilities. Development Patterns In terms of development patterns, the key issue is the arrangement of the buildings on the site and the corresponding relationship of the developments to the street and to parking. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor developed primarily in the post World War II era as an automobile- oriented, suburban strip. This has resulted in the generally suburban pattern of buildings set well back from Brooklyn Boulevard and surrounded by parking. However, in order to service the adjoining neighborhoods and reduce the number of automobile trips, pedestrian circulation systems should be a priority. One of the principal guidelines for redevelopments along Brooklyn Boulevard should be to provide a comfortable and convenient internal pedestrian circulation system, in order to minimize multiple trips by car and to encourage walk -in use from the adjoining residential neighborhoods. In this regard, because Brooklyn Boulevard is a very wide roadway which carries large volumes of traffic and therefore is difficult to cross, developments should be located primarily in one quadrant of an intersection or, at least, on one side of the Boulevard (Development Location Concept diagram in Figure 26). Brooklyn Bouievard Streetscape Amenities Study 62 r Expp,, Rede m 3 de apment C 1 SI �itnri.ni..r.n.{a�tn���tr,� gztf>�1# III (Across ollector i s 1 T. from Pri :iary Site) a Minor Arterial Brooklyn Boulevard f Development Development Location Concept I I Alternative B +f Multi- Levet, Parking Mixed -Use Pedestrian/ Ramp l Development Bicyclist R Access i'� Parking t e �ot Vehicular tr, CP Access P.- Wking Development Development Grade Alternative A t' Alternative C Figure 26: Redevelopment Patterns 5. Corridor Should Have 15. Outdoor atutg facilities 1. ltedevelopment Projects Should be Located in one Physical Design Continuity and Seating Should be Quadrant of intersection Promoted 6. Developments Should Have Visual Focal 9. Roofs Should— 2. Development Densities Should Feahnres be as High as Possible Have Varied Shapes (This E.�annple Represents 12. All Sides of a lower- Density Development) it Building Should Have tf 4. Screening Should be Provided Trea Cons ist e nt For Adjoining Sing le-Family Trea tment Neighborho _16. Signs Should Complement f 0c,. Developments rl tM IT11 8. Walls Should be Treated —14. Bicyclists i Not Blank i i Should be 1 Y Provided 7. Edges of Corridor Should be Well Defined 3• Vehicular Access (Buildings, Lvtdscaping, Fences) X, /N Points Should W he as Far from 11. Materials and Colors 10. Parking Lots Intersections Should he Compatible Should Have as Possible Landscaped Islands Development and Edges —13. Pedestrian Walks Should Enhancement Link All Developments Guidelines N Figure 27: Recommended Development Guidelines Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 63 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM A second issue for Brooklyn Center, in terms of development patterns, is whether to continue with the "suburban model" or whether to promote a more "urban model" with buildings set closer to the street and street frontages developed with more urban amenities and facilities for pedestrians. Three prototypical models for retail site developments are illustrated in Figure 26. Development Alternative A. In this model, a single -story development faces the street with a free standing building on the corner. This allows relatively good visibility of the front doors of all facilities and relatively good site circulation. In this model the primary building extends to the streets allowing convenient and direct access into the development for pedestrians. This is preferable to models where the buildings are located at the rear of the site, requiring pedestrians to cross parking lots to reach the facilities. Development Alternative B. In this model, the buildings are located along the property line and the parking is in the back of the development. This creates a more urban look along the street, however, since the entries are in the back and because most small businesses can not afford two entries, the facades toward the street are treated as the back sides of the buildings and frequently have no access from the street and little public amenities, such as windows or enhancements. Developement Alternative C. This model represents a higher- density mixed -use development, which could include retail on the first level and either housing or office uses on the upper level. This type of development would allow a more urban frontage along the street, but it would require a parking structure or underground parking, which greatly increases site development costs. In order to increase the land intensities in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, to provide for more convenient pedestrian access and circulation, and to develop a more distinct image for Brooklyn Boulevard, the recommen- dation is that efforts be made to promote and encourage higher- density developments which are located closer to the street. As a general rule, if a building does not extend to the street, no more than one row of parking should be placed between the building and the street. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 64 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Recommended Development Guidelines In many cases, the City may not be able to select, unless it is a participant in the redevelopment process, the types of developments which occur or the site layouts. However, the one area where the City can exert some control is in development guidelines which could be applied to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. Development guidelines, applied to redevelopment projects or new developments, could help mitigate undesirable features and create the type of environment the City desires for the Brook- lyn Boulevard Corridor. The proposed development guidelines are illustrated in a sample development (Figure 27), which consists of a single -story commercial retail complex located at an intersection. This example is not meant to represent a recommended development. It is being used to demonstrate how the guidelines might be applied to a typical situation in today's marketplace. Following are the recommended development guidelines for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. 1. Redevelopment Project Location at Intersections. Redevelopment projects should be, preferably, located in one quadrant of an intersection, or at least on one side of Brooklyn Boulevard, not both. A project should not try to link both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard with pedestrian circula- tion. 2. Development Densities. Development densities and site coverage in the Corridor should be generally PP increased. The appearance of the corridor should become somewhat more "urban." The increased densities should be complemented by improved design details, landscaping, lighting and signage. 3. Vehicular Access Points. Vehicular access points should be set back from major street intersections and other driveways as far as possible, according to individual site conditions and accepted traffic engineering standards. As a general rule, driveways on Brooklyn Boulevards should be at least 150 feet from major intersections. Vehicles should be able to circulate, as much as possible, between adjoining sites so as to minimize congestion on the public streets. 4. Adjoining Single Family Neighborhoods should be Protected. Any single-family esidential neighborhoods, which abut the developments g P along Brooklyn Boulevard, should be protected or screened from adverse Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 65 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM visual impacts. Building heights and massing should be reduced adjacent to single family housing. In all cases, landscaping, berming and /or fencing should separate commercial and residential activities; commercial traffic should be directed away from residential streets; and commercial lighting should be directed away from housing. Hours of business operation near housing should be regulated in cases where they may have a negative impact on the housing. 5. Physical Design Continuity. There should be physcial design continuity along the Corridor within the public right -of -way as well as the private developments. This should be achieved primarily through the public landscaping and lighting improvements, but should be supplemented by private landscaping, parking lot screening, and facade and roofline treatments. 6. Visual Focal Features. Major private developments should include a visual focal feature, such as a clock tower, entry arch, or other architec- tural element, to serve as memorable and meaningful landmarks. 7. Corridor Edge Treatments. The edges of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should be clearly defined. This can be accomplished by several means: Locating buildings or parts of buildings close to the edge of the street right -of -way Locating a building at the point of each intersection corner Buffering the edges of parking lots with berming, plantings, and /or fencing When a building is set back from the street right -of -way, there should be no more than one bay of parking between the sidewalk along the street and the building. Also, building setbacks not separated from the street by parking should be landscaped. 8. Building Wall Treatments. Building walls along Brooklyn Boulevard should not be blank. All walls facing streets or walkways should include windows, doors, openings, or other treatments which would help mitigate the "unfriendly" appearance of blank walls. At a minimum, display windows should be used. This will improve the aesthetic environment for both motorists and pedestrians. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 66 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 9. Roof Shapes. Roofs of buildings in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should not be flat. Sloping, peaked, gabled, or shed roof designs would add visual variety and would help to reinforce the "Earl Brown Heritage Center Theme which has been selected for the Corridor. 10. Parking Lot Treatments. Islands in parking lots should be landscaped for visual relief and enhancement. All parking lots which adjoin Brooklyn Boulevard, including the lots of automobile dealerships, should be screened with a continuous row of dense landscaping, at least two feet tall, or an ornamental fence or railing. 11. Materials and Colors. A degree of compatibility, but not uniformity, should be brought to new private developments through the use of materials and colors selected from a recommended common palette. The major concern should be regarding low quality materials and garish colors. 12. Treatment Consistency. The appearance of all sides of a building should be consistent in terms of the quality of materials and finishes. Screen walls and landscaping may be used as a substitute for a change of materi- als on rear walls, or walls which may not be visible by the general public. 13. Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrians should be able to move with comfort and security between the public sidewalks and private developments and between buildings on the same site: As much as possible, pedestrian walks should be provided directly between adjoining developments to encourage more pedestrian use. Pedestrian routes from the street to the building entrances and through each site should be clearly defined using building massing and architec- ture, sidewalks, landscaping and lighting. Awnings and arcades over windows and doors should be employed to protect pedestrians from the elements. 14. Bicyclist Facilities. Each development should include a bicycle rack(s), and sidewalk ramps should be installed at curbs for both bicyclists and the disabled. 15. Outdoor Eating and /or Seating. Developers should be encouraged to incorporated, whenever possible, outdoor eating facilities, such as sidewalk cafes or outdoor eating for restaurants, and outdoor seating. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 67 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 16. Signs. Signs along Brooklyn Boulevard should be designed to comple- ment and enhance the Corridor. Freestanding signs should have a limited number of names and /or logotypes (a maximum of three). They should be designed to appear as a single sign from a distance through the use of a framework of materials consistent with the building facade. Wall signs should not be white backlit plastic; individual letters are preferred; colored plastic panels with white or colored letters may also be acceptable. No bulletin signs (either portable or perma- nent) should be allowed. In addition to the relative large site used in the above example, consideration needs to be given to the development of smaller sites, which most likely will become more available along the Corridor, as well as mixed -use developments. Small Site Developments. Figure 28 illustrates how a small, linear site along the Boulevard might be developed utilizing the recommended development guidelines. The site is approximately 2.5 acres and the development represents a small neighborhood- oriented retail strip and a free- standing restaurant. The example illustrates desirable building massing, vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation with an internal link between the buildings, screen- ing for adjoining single- family residential uses, a site focal feature, and extensive landscaping and edge treatments along Brooklyn Boulevard. Mixed -Use Developments. Figure 29 illustrates a mixed -use development -on a 3 -acre site with commercial retail facilities on the lower level and residential units or offices above. The development has enclosed parking for the residential units or offices. This example illustrates the same desirable site development features as the Small Site Development and in addition it shows how a taller develop- ment could be stepped down towards adjoining single- family uses. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 68 1 �s$ r h—y n �f E3 t IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Redevelopment Case Studies In order to provide examples of the application of the development principles and guidelines to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, three special case studies were prepared: the I -694 to 69th Avenue Area; the 69th Avenue Area; and the 71st Avenue Area. I -694 to 69th Avenue Area Special Study The area on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -694 and 69th Avenue will require some redevelopment due to the widening of the roadway. Here the issue is whether to do only the minimum and try to preserve the area, as much as possible, as is or whether to consider some redevelopment in order to improve site configurations and access to the parcels. Existing Conditions (Figure 30). The widening of the roadway will require acquisition of portions of the parcels on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard, which will result in inadequately sized parcels for the current uses. In addition, the multiple access points on Brooklyn Boulevard create if VOL t'' tl tip"". aR', +�I� Y yy N �5. ./i s 71 w.enr n ✓,e a. uruda -e f ir ILr s r •f,„r Figure 30: I -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Existing Conditions Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 70 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM traffic conflicts. The plan also calls for construction of a median with a median break only at 68th Avenue. This requires changes to the circulation in the study area. There is also demand to create a stormwater storage pond in the vicinity of 69th Avenue and the auto dealerships have expressed interest to acquire additional land for expansion. Alternative A (Figure 31). This alternative calls for acquiring the smaller parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard including the Brookdale Pontiac site and reconfiguring the parcels to provide larger sites for the two large automobile dealerships as well as a 2.7 -acre site for a stormwater storage pond. The access point at 68th Avenue would be shared by both automo- bile dealerships and each would have one additional acces point (the second access for Bob Ryan Oldsmobile would Be right -in /right -out only). Alternative B (Figure 32). This alternative is similar to Alternative A, except that a 1.8 -acre parcel for general commercial uses would be created at the corner of Brookdale Boulevard and 69th Avenue and the stormwater ponding site would be only 1.8 acres. The commercial parcel would have its primary access from 69th Avenue. Alternative C (Figure 33). This alternative has a larger commercial site 2.2 acres), but a still smaller stormwater ponding area 0.6 acres). The access point would be shared by all three parcels and there would be room for a major sign for the whole development. Alternative D (Figure 34). In this alternative the commercial site is still larger 3.1 acres) and there is no room for a stormwater storage pond. The largercommercial site would allow more flexibility in site design,. which might improve its marketability. In all four alternatives, the reconfigured commercial site could be used to relocate some of the displaced businesses. The four alternatives present clear choices and more detailed evaluation, assessment, and discussions need to be held before a plan is finalized. 69th Avenue Area Special Study The second case study deals with the quadrant east of Brooklyn Boulevard and north of 69th Avenue. This area, similar to the area south of 69th Avenue, is also impacted by the roadway widening and questions arise about how this area should be redeveloped. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 71 AIW i' �I f a A SCI All 11♦ I I Hwtde E��,,Y ,AEA l�_ f ...5 Figure 31 I -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative A or I w I BOB Ryaw- I vy�r b i wa- 4+wrw.swr.�.wls �F Poat Otlitt ♦f -I Figure 32: I -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative B Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 72 a i -T F "nom'` O w- 3 r p: lktrl f �t�„' "fit Figure 33: I -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative C f AIP JV i i �46r�,rv [4S. ofq« •s 4: /S4 P 4 Ni Figure 34: I -694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative D Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 73 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The 69th Avenue area typifies a situation where the immediate needs or impacts may appear to be relatively small, but the opportunities for redevelopment and enhancements may be, upon closer inspection, much greater than anticipated. Forces /Issues Figure 35 illustrates the Forces /Issues which impact this area and which should be taken into consideration in preparing any plans for the 69th Avenue area. The key Forces /Issues are: Redevelopment Site Configuration The site immediately adjacent to the corner, between Brooklyn Boulevard, June Avenue, and 70th Avenue is the most likely candidate for redevelop ment. Parts of this area will need to be acquired for widening of Brook- lyn Boulevard and some of the buildings are showing their age. There has been infringement, as the commercial parking needs have grown, on the residential area along June Avenue. The optimum solution, in order to establish a clear boundary with the residential areas to the east and to utilize the median break on 69th Avenue, would be to acquire all the houses on June Avenue for redevelop ment. This would create a parcel of approximately 4.5 acres. An additional factor in determining the size of the redevelopment area is the St. Alphonsus Church site north of 70th Avenue, which is underuti- lized and a prime candidate for redevelopment.. Also, the two residential units on Brooklyn Boulevard, north of 70th Avenue are incompatible with the character of Brooklyn Boulevard. The overall potential redevelopment area, including the small office building and the small apartment complex, could be 15 acres, or more. Area Vehicular Circulation and Site Access The two key access points to the larger redevelopment site would be from Brooklyn Boulevard at 70th Street and from 69th Avenue just west of Indiana Avenue. These access points need to be coordinated with access needs across Brooklyn Boulevard to the west and across 69th Avenue to the south. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 74 y ,w, r s a xr. i Btofrr/ w -0 C �I P saern t s zom .sue Ak N w k: IRIgLt:yY/� gc•'yyM�ll SLC F`- s. i. vacate site Agaess VidgHt Y 4r i t glbla c 4 t 4 lr:: A!en Yt+/ i �Acocisa pat T t A..` if T Y0 a qp Eu 's a r \Ca Figure 35: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues qA wi, I V RaA'1+ictald ky KIM= f k Density i r s 22 Lfnita /Aare is y a Re5t8ttrant A200 �4 o*cq i- �•f S�Y¢ilT11a' V oOfHc�e,BaUotn a ir x 0 d0 10Q Z11`iPn+. r�r+tBr .p.. X00 Figure 36: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept A Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 75 e IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Other traffic issues concern the status of 70th Street (should it stay open or should it be closed), access to the Church parking lots, circulation through the adjoining residential neighborhoods, and additional right in /right -out access locations. Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation All plans for the area should provide for convenient pedestrian /bicycle circulation to and from the adjoining neighborhoods and within the developments themselves. St. Alphonsus Church Site Although St. Alphonsus Church may have an underutilized site, it still needs to accommodate all required functions such as a play field, recre- ation areas, and parking. Buffering and Screening The adjoining residential areas should be buffered or screened from intrusive visual impacts. Redevelopment Program The redevelopment program should take into consideration the needs of the neighborhood and the City. Since this area has been identified as the site for a neighborhood- oriented commercial node, the developments should be geared, at least partially, towards providing services and retail facilities for the adjoining residential areas. Another development component might be multi- family or senior housing. St. Alphonsus Church representatives have expressed an interest in senior housing and this might be included in the program. Currently, the City is undertaking an economic study for this redevelopment area which will help establish the level of demand for retail and housing facilities. Phased Developments Because the total site may not become available at one time, -the develop ments should be able to be staged and be able to operate as self sufficient, independent units. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 76 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Redevelopment Concepts Based upon the Forces /Issues Analysis, four concept diagrams were prepared for how the site might be developed. All the concept alternatives represent multi -use developments including medium to high- density housing, offices, restaurants, and retail and service commercial uses. The total assumed redevelopment site is approximately 18 acres. Concept A Concept A (Figure 36) represents a multi -use development with its primary orientation and statement at the corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue. The project includes the following: a multi tenant retail complex at the corner with one row of parking along the street frontages and additional parking in the back; the existing small office building north of 70th Avenue; a free standing restaurant north of the office building; a single- tenant or multi tenant retail complex north of 70th Avenue, adjacent to the Church property; and a medium to high- density residential complex at the north end of the site. Major features or issues of Concept A are: It laces a neighborhood-oriented commercial complex close to the P g P intersection thus establishing a "strong" presence on Brooklyn Boulevard and providing easy access to the retail from the adjoin- ing neighborhoods. The large retail facility north of 70th Avenue may be set too far back from the Boulevard and it creates a barrier for St. Alphonsus Church. The plan calls for vacating parts of 70th Avenue requiring all traffic destined to the residential neighborhood or to St. Alphonsus Church to use Indiana and Halifax Avenues. Concept B Concept B (Figure 37) represents a multi -use and /or mixed -use develop ment which is totally oriented to Brooklyn Boulevard. Although it curves back from Brooklyn Boulevard in the vicinity of 70th Avenue, a large civic plaza or small park at 70th Avenue and the fact that all front doors and access faces the roadway, give it a strong "presence" on Brooklyn Boulevard. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 77 r f s .�fti 3PA i 1� `0 ,•g 1 4 J� low jR a: �ACCl3 s 1 al F y, •b��e'I y, i1 S WT -tea tti a e' -y II_..1 I A V. t. d 'u. Y(`C 1 s: 1 7rFt tt'�.!"+•e!�it1 Figure 37.• 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept B It MrIffang Ak €?fir 1 Ball Y► a =see. dal a. et H yr�t ,x.�•.� cs C qy�` 'S'` 1 I 1 700 r s W Figure 38: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept C Brooklyn Boulevard r Y a d St eetscape Amenities Study 78 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM In addition to the uses listed in Concept A, Concept B also includes office uses and, potentially, a greater variety of residential unit types. The complex at the corner could have retail on the ground floor and residential or office uses above. The building east of the plaza could have retail on the ground floor and offices above with the office parking on the east side of the building. The office parking could then be used as a shared parking facility with the Church, thus reducing the overall parking requirements. The building north of the plaza could have retail or a restaurant on the first level with market -rate housing or a special assisted living complex on the upper levels. The northern parcel would be residential. Major features or issues of Concept B are: It provides convenient shopping for the adjoining residential neighborhoods and it has a strong "presence" on Brooklyn Boule- vard. The developments would be interconnected by a direct and conve- nient pedestrian circulation system, which also provides links to the adjoining neighborhoods. The plaza could be a focal feature for the development and an amenity for Brooklyn Boulevard. Keeping 70th Avenue open would provide convenient access to the developments as well as to the Church, reducing traffic impacts on the adjoining residential areas. The shared arkin would be a benefit to the developments and the P g P Church. Concept C Concept C (Figure 38) represents a multi -use and /or mixed -use develop- ment which i oriented at the intersec- s o e ted to a lazy located, t d p o a e tion of 70th Avenue and June Avenue. Concept C could include all the uses listed under Concept B. In order to maximize density, the development includes a small parking ramp in the southeast corner. The ramp would not be necessary if the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 79 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM development intensity is lowered. In this alternative, 70th Avenue is kept open to traffic, but it also serves as a parking mall with perpendicular parking on both sides of the street. Major features or issues of Concept C are: The plaza creates a strong focus for the developments. However, the focus is located away from Brooklyn Boulevard. Because the primary front facades would be oriented to 70th Avenue and the internal north -south pedestrian way, the impression will be that the developments have the "back sides" to Brooklyn Boulevard. Although 70the Avenue is not expected to carry a large volume of traffic, the perpendicular parking on 70th Avenue might create a conflict with through traffic. There is less opportunity for shared parking with the Church, unless the parking ramp is designated for Church use. The distance from the ramp to the Church might be an issue. This type of a development might prove to be hard to market, since many of the businesses would not have direct exposure to Brooklyn Boulevard or any other major roadway. The three alternatives for redeveloping the 69th Avenue area present three relatively distinct choices: Concept A is closest to a typical suburban model where the developments are free standing and fronted by large parking lots Concept B represents a somewhat "traditional or historic, model where the developments have a strong orientation to the street Concept C represents a model of a small town or node where the major roadway has bypassed it and the focus no longer is on the roadway An evaluation of the three alternatives, resulted in the selection of Concept B as the most desirable model for development in the 69th Avenue area. Concept B represents one layout for developing the area. There might be numerous other configurations which could fit the desired model. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study so IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The City should work with developers to achieve a plan which incorporates the characteristics represented by Concept B, yet is feasible to achieve in today's market environment. 71st Avenue Area Special Study The third special study area is located along 71st Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard. This area consists of a small residential "pocket consisting of eleven single family homes located between the medium density housing complex to the north and west and Willow Lane School to the south. Forces /Issues Following is a description of the Forces /Issues (Figure 39), which impact this area: Through Traffic. The through traffic on 71st Avenue /Perry Avenue is a negative impact on this single family residential area. The City has considered various alternatives for discouraging through traffic. Underutilized Sites. The area has a number of vacant arcels including g the two parcels at the corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 71st Avenue. In addition, the corner of the Willow Lane School site adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard is underutilized and could be used for development. However, if this corner of the School site is developed, it may have to be replaced, in kind, somewhere else. Incompatible Use. The single- family residence adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard is too close to a high traffic artery and should be removed. Higher- Density Housing Potential. A close examination of the medium- density housing complex to the north reveals that there are two dead -end streets which are inconsitent with the rest of the development pattern. Itappears that the original plan must have included a loop extension to the south with additional units located along the school property. Redevelopment Concepts Concept A Concept A (Figure 40) represents a plan where the single- family residen- tial pocket is converted to medium- density housing. The medium- density Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 81 t er `rl a ,:M d A4Gti C Figure 39: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues Figure 40: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Concept A a Figure 41: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Concept B Brooklyn Boulevard StreetsCape Amenities Study 82 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM housing complex would gain a second access point at the 71st Avenue intersection and the circulation within the complex would be vastly improved, due to the completion of the loop system. Perry Avenuewould be terminated in a cul -de -sac at the edge of the Willow Lane School property. The Willow Lane School ro ert would remain as is. This option P P Y P resolves most of the issues and replaces a low- density residential develop ment with a higher- density residential development that is much more compatible with the Brooklyn Boulevard environment. Concept B Concept B (Figure 41) also replaces all the single family houses, except one, with higher density developments. This option adds fewer medium density housing units, but it maximizes the opportunities along Brooklyn Boulevard by creating a new, two and -a- half -acre commercial parcel just south of the 71st Avenue intersection. This plan takes advantage of the underutilized corner of the Willow Lane School site by trading it for a same -size site on the north edge of the School property, which creates a better parcel configuration for the School. This option also resolves most of the site development forces and issues and it takes better advantage of the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage and exposure. Both options present reasonable redevelopment choices. A key issue for the 71st Avenue area is the question of funding and what process should be used to acquire the properties and redevelop the sites. Redevelopment Plan The potential redevelopment parcels and their staging is illustrated in Figure 42: Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The recommended redevelopment staging priorities are based on current City plans and on the anticipated needs in the Corridor and are as follows: Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 83 If f r q i 1 w 1 9 a r h r y a r t ft t i f 2 1 Legend Redevelopment Predominant Staging Land Use e 4 1 ar pr g psme add 0 no low 20M Figure 42: Corridor Redevelopment Plan Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 84 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The first area to be redeveloped will be the stormwater pond /MTC Park- and -Ride Facility just south of I -694, which is already in- the early planning stages. The next highest priority for redevelopment is the sites north of 1 -694, because of the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. The redevelopment of the parcels in this segment should ideally occur at the same time as the roadway widening project. That way there will be less disruption and the disruption in the area will occur for a shorter period of time. The next group of sites to be redeveloped should be the ones in the central segment of the Corridor, between 58th Avenue and I -694. Redevelopment of these sites will help strengthen the commerdial core. The sites south of 58th Avenue should be redeveloped last. Following is a list and a brief description of the issues for each of the redevelop- ment sites identified in Figure 42. The grouping of redevelopment areas under one number, such as 2A and 2B, indicates redevelopment parcels with interrelated or similar issues that should be redeveloped in approximately the same timeframe. The issues and forces impacting the redevelopment areas are illustrated in greater detail in Figures 10 through 13. 1. Stormwater Pond and Park and -Ride Facility South of I -694. This will require the acquisition of seven houses on Brooklyn Boulevard and fourteen houses all together. This will dramatically improve the traffic circulation on Brooklyn Boulevard by eliminating six residential curb cuts in the very critical roadway segment around I -694. 2A. Commercial Redevelopment and Stormwater Storage Pond. This area needs to be redeveloped due to the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. A stormwater pond should be developed as part of the redevelopment. The area is discussed in greater detail in the previous section under I -694 to 69th Avenue Area Special Study. 2B. Commercial/Residential Redevelopment. This area needs to be redevel- oped due to the proposed widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. The key issues are: 1) the size of the redevelopment site and whether the housing along June Avenue should be included in the redevelopment project; 2) redevel- opment of the properties along Brooklyn Boulevard north of 70th Avenue; and 3) redevelopment of portions of the St. Alphonsus Church site. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 85 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The area is discussed in greater detail in the previous section under 69th Avenue Area Special Study. 3. Redevelopment of Single -Family Residential Strip. The key issues are: 1) future widening of 69th Avenue; 2) size of parcel and inclusion of houses along Lee Avenue; 3) site access; and 4) buffering for the adjoin- ing residential area. 4. Commercial Use /Access. The key issues are: 1) land use and 2) access. 5. Redevelopment of Single Family Residential "Pocket This area could be redeveloped to mitigate some of the adverse impacts and to intensify the site utilization. The area is discussed in greater detail in the previous section under 71st Avenue Area Special Study. 6A. Commercial Redevelopment. This area could be redeveloped to a' higher- density, multi -use or mixed -use development. This area has been identified as the potential "Town Center" commercial site, which would serve as a neighborhood- oriented commercial center and as the focal area of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. 6B. Redevelopment Site. This area includes single family houses along Brooklyn Boulevard which need to be redeveloped. The key issues are: 1) size of redevelopment site and how much of the single family area should be considered for redevelopment; 2) whether the City Fire Station and Liquor Store should be included in the redevelopment; and 3) what the redevelopment program should be. This area has been identified as a higher- density residential area for the "Town Center" complex. Other uses could be retail or office. If the use is residential, the redevelopment .could extend to Beard Avenue. If it is commercial, a boundary should be established at the back line of the houses facing Beard Avenue. 6C. Redevelopment of Single -Family Residential Strip. The key issues are: 1) size of the parcel and whether the houses along France Avenue should be included; 2) whether the access to Brooklyn Boulevard at Halifax Drive should stay; and 3) development program. This could be a higher- density residential or a commercial /office redevelopment project. 7. Redevelopment of Single- Family Strip and "Pocket The key issues are: 1) because of its proximity to and visibility from I -694, this would be Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 86 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM an ideal commercial redevelopment site, however, it could also be a higher- density residential site; 2) size of redevelopment parcel and whether it should extend to Ewing Avenue; and 3) access to Brooklyn Boulevard. Because of the weaving distances and access requirements to the ramps at I -694, the only full access point would be at the signalized 65th Avenue intersection, which means that site access from the north would be on 65th Avenue /Ewing Avenue only. A right -in /right -out only access point might be permissible at the current France Avenue access. point. 8A. Redevelopment of Single- Family Strip. This site would be an ideal location for a neighborhood- oriented small commercial center, which could service the residential areas to the west. The key issues are: 1) size of parcel; 2) whether houses along Drew Avenue should be included; and 3) site access. 8b. Redevelopment of Single Family Strip. The key issues are: 1) size of site and 2) access at 61st Avenue. 9. Future of Single -Family Strip. The key issues are: 1) the corner site, which is zoned C -1, is too small a site for redevelopment; 2) the houses facing 59th Avenue are impacted by the traffic which uses 59th Avenue as a shortcut; and 3) whether this strip of land could be better utilized for commercial expansion. 10. Redevelopment "Pocket This area includes a funeral home and some adjacent parcels which are underutilized, but which have been considered for the funeral home expansion. The area needs to be reevaluated, including the issue of traffic which uses 60th Avenue through the residen- tial neighborhoods as a route to the Little League Ballfields to the east. 11A. Redevelopment of Single Family Residential Strip. In the future, because of its location and visibility, this area may be under great pressure to change. The key issues are: 1) its proximity to Brookdale Mall and great visibility from Brooklyn Boulevard make this area a potential candidate for commercial expansion (already, the area at 56th Avenue has been converted to office uses); 2) in spite of a great location and visibility, the area lacks good vehicular access (the only access point is at 55th Avenue); and 3) the existing uses are located on a frontage road which is separated from Brooklyn Boulevard by a buffer strip. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 87 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM In light of the recommendation, discussed in section V. Framework Plan, to concentrate new commercial developments in the central portion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor north of 58th Avenue, this area should not be considered, at this time, for commercial uses. However, it might be considered for higher density residential uses, which could be screened from Brooklyn Boulevard by introducing a landscaped screen along the frontage road, as discussed in section VIII. Improvement Program. 11B. Redevelopment of Single- Family Residential Strip. This area is similar to Redevelopment Area 11A and the same issues and recommendations apply. 12. Redevelopment of Nursery Site. The nursery site has been considered for redevelopment to higher density residential This use would be appropriate for the location, especially, because it adjoins Happy Hollow Park. This Redevelopment Staging Plan represents a rough estimate of how redevelop ment might occur. Site- specific conditions and development pressures may dictate otherwise. Although it is recommended that the City respond to the situations where the redevelopment pressures are the greatest, this Plan will help set some priorities and should help in situations where clear choices are not obvious. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 88 X. IMPLEMENTATION Following is a brief outline of the key steps for implementing the streetscape enhancement program, the development guidelines, and the site redevelopment program. Implementation of streetscape Enhancements The City has already taken the first step in the implementation of the Streetscape Enhancement Program. An application was submitted by the City in March, 1994, for a $500,000 ISTEA grant to fund a portion of"the Phase 1 improvements (see Section VIII. Improvement Program). In addition to the ISTEA grant, additional funds will be required to fund the total Phase 1 project. Other funding which might be considered includes TIF funds and special assessments. The City will need to evaluate these funding options and establish a specific funding program. Future phases of the Streetscape Enhancement program will have to be funded in a similar way. Implementation of Development Guidelines Following is a description of potential methods for implementing the development guidelines, an overview of the status of discretionary controls, and recommenda- tions for implementation. Methods for Implementation Many of the design guidelines recommended for private developments, listed in section IX. Redevelopment Program, probably can not be accomplished by using only the zoning regulations and districts currently in place in Brooklyn Center. This is because the proposed development or design guidelines are either different (e.g., building setbacks), ambiguous (e.g., compatible building materials and colors) or novel (e.g., pitched roofs). Therefore, a new approach may be required. Available Methods Methods for implementing the recommended development and design guidelines could include one or more of the following: Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 89 X. IMPLEMENTATION Peer and community pressure. Negotiated agreements as part of the development approval process. Rezoning to another existing zoning district, especially the Planned Unit District. Creation and use of new zoning districts. Creation and use of an overlay zoning district for the Corridor. Overview of Zoning Controls Zoning regulations` for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor (or any other location) should have the following characteristics if they are to withstand legal challenges. 1. Relationship to the Public Interest The P public interest must be defined and agreed upon (at least in consensus). There must be a clear and understandable connection between the public interest and the regulations. The regulations must be written to serve the public interest but not overstep those bounds. The public interest is often a balance between the collective property rights of the community (e.g., safety, economic develop- ment, beauty) and the private property rights of individuals (e.g., of the public quiet enjoyment, economic return). The definition P q JY interest must be negotiated in each case with those who would be affected by the regulations. Consequently, the level of acceptable regulation will vary from one situation to another. It may, for example, be lower in a rural setting than an urban neighborhood with historic and architectural importance. 2. Due Process The public interest must be defined through a process that is logical, is reasonable, and involves the public in a meaningful and constructive way. Plans and policies should serve as the basis of the regulations, and the public should be involved in their prepara- Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 90 X. IMPLEMENTATION tion, review and adoption. Any policies, maps, illustrations or other guiding features of such plans should have minimal ambigu- ity if they are referenced in the regulations and used to give direction or wisdom to the interpreters of the regulations. The regulations must be administered in a way that treats each affected landowner fairly relative to other landowners. Interpretations must not be "arbitrary and capricious." Approaches of Other Communities A survey was conducted of other suburban Twin Cities communities to discover what approaches they are taking to corridor design and planning regulations. Most have corridor plans in plate and are using standard zoning districts and site plan review. Tax increment financing is used to assist redevelopment in many cases. Richfield expects to adopt overlay zones for their several corridors. A description of the various approaches is presented in Table 3. Status of Discretionary Controls Over the years, courts have upheld the right of communities to pass zoning laws that go beyond nuisance control and protect community aesthetics. While local governments must still proceed carefully in enacting and implementing aesthetic- based laws (just as they must with any land -use regulation), particularly where they might impinge on forms of communication protected by the First Amend ment's guarantee of freedom of speech (as in sign ordinances), they have great leeway in acting to protect community aesthetics. There has also been a trend toward zoning regulations giving greater discretion to the ublic. Earl zoning w rigid wh at was allowed and p o as Id ands specified about Y g g p where. The system was supposed to be neat, orderly, and efficient. While continuing o a homage to conventional zoning wisdom communities have g PY g g modified many of its elements and tacked on a whole, often uncoordinated, array of devices that allow greater flexibility to developers and /or give greater power to the public. What exists now is the widespread use of "wait and see" techniques that provide communities with an opportunity to make final development decisions at the time development occurs. The old flexible techniques variances, special use permits and rezonings remain, but their use has been expanded. To them have been added many new devices designed to accommodate special development consider- ations. Such techniques include: Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 91 X. IMPLEMENTATION Table 3 Survey of Land Use Controls and Incentives in Arterial Corridors of the Twin Cities Site Corridor Zoning Plan Plan in TIF City Corridor Used Review Effect Used Comments Brooklyn Brooklyn Stan- Yes Yes Yes The City is not satisfied with the Park Boule- dard economic development or aesthetic vard districts results achieved in recent years. Seeking to implement a major land- scaping effort consistent with the general, corridor plan. Crystal Co. Propos Yes Yes; Pro- The recent corridor plan is expected Road 81 es uses 1992. posed to be implemented using PUD pro of PUD cess and site plan review for subjec- tive interpretation and application of the corridor plan during redevelop ment. Crystal Bass Stan- Yes Yes, Yes Corridor plan has been implemented Lake dard 1985. using extensive public property Road districts acquisition and resale with design agreements; major public invest ments in lighting, landscaping and roadways. Robbins- Co. Stan- Yes No Yes Site planning control has been exer- dale Road 81; dard cised through City financial partici- West districts pation in redevelopment. The City Broad- staff feel that the current zoning way pattern is not appropriate in all cases and that redevelopment has succeed ed in spite of the zoning controls. New 42nd Stan- Yes Yes Yes The corridor plan includes public Hope Avenue dard and private design guidelines. Pub districts lic lighting and landscaping im- provements were accomplished with TIF. Private aesthetic improvements during redevelopment (or modem- ization) are promoted with TIF funds and negotiation. Zoning was changed from a mixture of commer- cial, industrial and residential to a "shopping center" distric. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 92 X. IMPLEMENTATION Table 3 (Continued) Site Corridor Zoning Plan Plan in TIF City Corridor Used Review Effect Used Comments Fridley Univer- Stan- Yes Yes, No The City has not accomplished many sity Ave- dard 1985 aesthetic improvements nor made nue districts any extraordinary strides with eco- nomic development along University Avenue. Possibility of LRT has put streetscape improvements on hold. Council has taken a conservative approach to the corridor. Richfield Lyndale, Stan- Yes Yes Yes Richfield is updating its comprehen- Penn, dard sive plan and devising specific Nicollet, districts guidelines that will address parking, 66th St. now access, si e, landscaping, li htin g"ag lighting expect and site planning for each of several to use corridors. The City expects to use overlay overlay zoning to implement the in fu- guidelines of each of these planning ture. districts, which will be individually tailored for each corridor. The cur- rent underlying zoning will be re- tained. St. Louis High- Stan- Yes Yes, Yes Some public landscaping and light Park way 7 dard 1984. ing improvements have been made districts using TIF. Private improvements have been accomplished during city- assisted redevelopment. Plan ele- ments have been used to guide pri- vate improvements. St. Louis Excelsior Stan- Yes Yes, Yes Excelsior Boulevard has a mixture of Park Boule- dard 1990. commercial and residential land vard districts uses, often with shallow lots abut ting single- family neighborhoods. The roadway is five -lanes with a raised median. The corridor is con sidered the city's "downtown." Pre existing zoning is being used. The zoning ordinance was completely overhauled in 1992. Some lighting improvements have been installed using TIF, and landscaping improve- ments are contemplated. A major medical commercial mixed -use pro ject has been approved near TH 100 in the TIF District. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 93 X. IMPLEMENTATION Table 3 (Continued) Site Corridor Zoning Plan Plan in TIF City Corridor Used Review Effect Used Comments St. Louis Minn- Stan- Yes No Yes A small P ortion of Minnetonka i Park etonka dard Boulevard was addressed in a 1990 Boule- districts plan. There have been no special vard lighting or landscaping improve ments nor any extraordinary public effort to redevelop land in this corridor. Apple Cedar Stan- Yes Yes Yes The-City has devoted large amounts Valley Av. and dard of TIF and other funds to sidewalk, CR 42 districts lighting and landscaping throughout their "downtown' district around this intersection. TIF incentives have also been used to implement private improvements consistent with the plan. Maple- White Stan- Yes No No The current approach of careful wood Bear dard administration of zoning districts Avenue districts through site plan review is said to be working acceptably. The City would like to hold the line on the amount of land zoned for commer- cial use in this corridor. Eden TH 212 Stan- Yes No No This corridor has a variety of very Prairie near dard attractive, auto oriented commercial Prairie districts developments. They feature exten- Center sive landscaping and berming as a Drive result of the City's strop landsca g P ing ordinance and a very good mar- ket. Signs are also very attractive because of municipal controls. White High- Stan- Yes Yes Yes The City has replaced an abandoned Bear Lake way 61 dard railroad siding area with an attrac- districts tive bank and a City hall. Deterior- ated property has been cleared for a park along the lake. The landscap- ing, lighting and other improvement- s proposed in the corridor plan have not yet been installed. Some bike- ped improvements have been done. Minne- I -394 Special Yes Yes No Minnetonka uses its Planned 1 -394 tonka District District to regulate land develop ment in this corridor to (1) control the amount of PM peak -hour traffic that each site may generate and (2) establish higher site development standards than normally required. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 94 X. IMPLEMENTATION Overlay zone. A mapped zone that imposes a set of requirements in addition to those of the underlying district. The additional requirements can be the guidelines adopted as part of a corridor or other plan. The ordinance can be written to allow City discretion in the application of the requirements so that special circumstances can be addressed and trade -offs made. A major benefit of an overlay district, compared to "standard" districts, is that it avoids the need to create several new standard districts for the various elements of a corridor plan. Floating zone. A floating zone is the same as a conventional zone, except that it is not designated on the zoning map. It is affixed to a particular parcel by amending the zoning map, following the approval of a landowners application. Planned -Unit Development Ordinance. This allows variations in many of the traditional controls in exchange for a higher quality result. This technique is in place in Brooklyn Center. Conditional Rezoning. Conditional Rezoning is a change in zoning given in exchange for a promise to develop the land in a particular way. Each of these control devices allows the community some degree of discretionary authority to respond to the realities of development by postponing its decisions until development is about to occur and then, in response to a proposal, to establish in detail how the land is to be developed. These zoning techniques could be called special public interest zones. They fill gaps where other controls are ineffective. They are often broad and flexible devices, legally grounded in the requirements that zoning regulations must have a substantial relation to the public interest. The key requirement for implement- ing these special zoning techniques is that there be an expressed and demonstrated special and substantial public interest and that lawful zoning controls be used to promote and defend the public interest. Recommendations The recommendations for implementing the Development Guidelines are as follows: 1. Establish a New Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zoning District. The Corridor Overlay Zoning District will supplement the current zoning regulations, overriding the current regulations when there Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 95 X. IMPLEMENTATION is a conflict. It should include a formal list of the private development design guidelines, as presented in section IX. Redevelopment Program, supplemented by the applicable illustrations. The Corridor Overlay Zoning District will allow the City to express broad design aims and achieve them through a negotiated site plan review process. 2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan should be amended to bring the Land Use Plan into, conformance with the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Concept Plan. 3. Amend the City Zoning Map. The City's Zoning Map should be amended to reflect the changes to the Land Use Plan and to incorporate the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay District. Implementation of Site Redevelopments The implementation of the redevelopment of the sites identified in Figure 34: Corridor Redevelopment Plan can proceed on many fronts. Following are a few of the techniques the City could use to begin the redevelopment process: 1. Housing Acquisition. The City should begin the acquisition of the single- family houses along Brooklyn Boulevard, north of Highway 100, under existing City programs. The houses could be acquired for immediate redevelopment, assuming a developer has been identified. The acquired sites could also be "land banked" for future redevelopments. 2. Establishment of TIF Districts. The City should select the most critical redevelopment areas, as defined in section IX. Redevelopment Program, and start establishing TIF Districts in order to promote and assist the redevelopment process. P 3. Identification and Selection of Developers. The City should issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) for each project, to identify potential develop ers for the redevelopment areas. Based on their experience and their ability to meet the City's needs, the City should select the most qualified developers to prepare redevelopment proposals. 4. Coordination and Implementation of Redevelopments. In a pub lic /private partnership with the developers, the City /Developer Team(s) can start refining and finalizing the site development programming, financing, and redevelopment scheduling and construction. Brooklyn Boulevard streetscape Amenities Study 96 MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Spe 'alist Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 Date: February 22, 2005 On the February 28, 2005 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 submitted by Mr. William J. Tippmann on behalf of Bear Creek Capital, LLC requesting Rezoning from R -1 and C -1 to PUD /C -2 and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy on a proposed 1.53 acre site located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their February 17, 2005 meeting and was recommended for approval through Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -01 (attached) It is.recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. A resolution outlining the history of the application along with findings and conditions of approval is offered for the City Council's consideration. Also, an ordinance amendment redescribing the property to be rezoned within this Planned Unit Development is offered for first reading by the City Council. The new description contained in the plat will be used for the ordinance amendment. The final plat will have to be approved and filed before the description can be utilized. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the draft resolution and, by motion, approve the first reading of the ordinance amendment describing the property to be rezoned. Application Filed on 1 -20 -05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 3 -21 -05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005 -003 Applicant: Bear Creek Capital, LLC Location: Northwest Quadrant of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning/Development Approval- PUD /C -2 The applicant, Bear Creek Capital, LLC on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, is seeking rezoning from R -1 (One Family Residence) and C -1 (Service /Office) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of five contiguous lots located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy. Beat Creek Capital, LLC has a purchase agreement to acquire the five lots in question. Two of the lots face County Road 10 (58` Avenue North) and are currently zoned R -1, while the other three lots are zoned C -1 and face Brooklyn Boulevard. Once combined (See Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -002) the five lots will create a single parcel of land that is 66,517 sq. ft. or 1.53 acres in area. The property in question is bounded on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by County Road 10; on the west by R -1 zoned property abutting on Drew Avenue North; and on the north by C -1 zoned property containing a dental center and parking lot. The applicant's plan is to demolish and/or otherwise remove the five existing single family homes and other accessory buildings to build a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy, which would have cross driving, parking and access rights with the neighboring dental center site to the north. The applicant is seeking the PUD /C -2 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned commercial retail development. The C -2 (Commerce) underlying zoning designation is being sought because it acknowledges the proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the C -2 requirements to allow an encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer area required where a C -2 use abuts an R -1 use (along the west property line). This modification is proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site and to accommodate Hennepin County concerns to have the access to the site as far removed from the corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard as possible to accommodate traffic movements and left turn lane stacking space. The applicant believes this modification will be offset by various plan considerations and aspects of their development proposal which will mitigate it. The land in question is acknowledged in the City's Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for neighborhood service and retail business functions and such an expansion and rezoning could be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this 2 -17 -05 Page 1 case C -2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer area between C -2 and R -1 land uses. Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide an 8 ft. high maintenance free screen fence with additional landscaping including a heavy concentration of balsam fur that will grow above the 8 ft. screening device. This is similar to what was done where the retail development proposal along 69` Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard was undertaken. In that case, a maintenance fee fence and beefed up landscape were provided to offset or mitigate the closer proximity of a driving and parking lane to the residential property backing up to this development. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as being consistent with the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute "spot zoning which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the city's policy and against the various guidelines which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal. a. Is there a clear public need or benefit? The applicant comments that this site lies in proximity to high level commercial land uses. A Planned Unit Development provides flexibility of development while providing the public with control over land use applications. It is the staff's opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City and also is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the 2 -17 -05 Page 2 business needs of the community and the residential needs of adjoining properties. It is not anticipated that this proposal will be a detriment, but on the other hand, it should be a positive factor in providing benefits that positively affect the community as well as the applicant. The City's Comprehensive Plan relating to Brooklyn Boulevard broadly recommends gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single family homes on Brooklyn Boulevard and replacing them with either commercial and service /office uses or high and medium density residential uses. Specifically with respect to Brooklyn Boulevard and 58 Avenue North, the Comprehensive Plan recommends neighborhood oriented commercial uses and retail functions. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant comments that adjacent and to the east a PUD with commercial land use application has been approved and enacted. I am not certain to what PUD the applicant is referring. A Planned Unit Development was adopted for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Mall a number of years ago and commercial development of a relatively intense nature is located east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to the south of County Road 10 as well. Certainly the proposed land use classification could be considered consistent with and compatible with the land uses to the east and southeast of this site as well as the dental office immediately to the north. The significant question is how compatible this proposal can be with the single family residential located immediately to the west. The City Council recently established a Central Commerce Overlay District (CC) which begins on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard and encompasses all of the Central Commercial area including Brookdale and perimeter businesses and the commercial and even multi residential land uses along Shingle Creek to Interstate 94 then east to Highway 100. This Central Commerce Overlay District was established to indicate all of the potential commercial uses which were considered to be appropriate for development in this area and also to outline specific uses which would otherwise be allowed in a general commerce area to be excluded or considered inappropriate for this area. It would seem in conflict to extend a C -2 zoning district for this particular area without also excluding uses for that site that would be considered inappropriate. Uses such as sauna establishments, massage establishments, currency exchanges, pawn shops and secondhand good dealers are uses that are not permitted in the Central Commerce Overlay District and should not be allowed if this PUD /C -2 zoning designation is acceptable. It should also be pointed out that this Central Commerce Overlay District is not intended for use as chapels, churches, temples, mosques, and s y n agogues q as well as public and private elementary and secondary schools (K -12). c. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant notes that the current zoning of affected parcels does not allow for the proposed use. 2 -17 -05 Page 3 The applicant is correct. The current zoning of the majority of the property, which is C -1 (Service /Office) does not allow a retail use such as a pharmacy. Another reason for seeking the Planned Unit Development is to limit some of the uses that are otherwise considered inappropriate in the C -2 underlying zone as was outlined in the previous comments. Otherwise, we believe it is possible for all of the other permitted uses in the C -2 underlying zone to be contemplated for development. However, with a PUD only the proposal approved with the Planned Unit Development is what is to be developed. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant comments that to the east, commercial zoning has been increased. This is not necessarily the case. The CC Central Commerce Overlay District was established, however, there has been no recent increase in commercial zoning in this immediate area. The existing C -1 zoning classification has been in place since at least 1968 when many of the single family residential homes in this area became non conforming uses. It has been the City's longstanding policy that these single family homes eventually be converted or redeveloped into commercial uses. As was mentioned previously, the City's Comprehensive Plan does recommend an expansion of the general commerce zoning district in this particular area and we believe it can be construed to include expanding it as being proposed by the applicant in this situation. e. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad purpose ublic evident? P This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant indicates that they have taken measures to minimize impact of the zoning classification on adjacent uses as it relates to screening. They note that there requested zoning will require a more comprehensive screening application. The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We believe it is important to establish an appropriate buffer between the single family residential to the west. The proposed commercial use also seems to provide a good transitional use from Brooklyn Boulevard to the residential neighborhood to the west. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two areas. 2 -17 -05 Page 4 g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to sp size, configuration, topography or location. The applicant notes that the proposed pharmacy use of the property will combine five single family lots for commercial development with driveway access to 58` and Brooklyn Boulevard. They note that they believe their proposal in coordination with adjacent property owners will insure safer circulation on the site and in the general area. Generally it is the City's position that inappropriate single family residential homes in the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor should be replaced with other uses. Numerous access points for single family residential homes on Brooklyn Boulevard cause potential traffic problems. Consolidating, eliminating and reducing access points on Brooklyn Boulevard is considered a benefit. It can be said that the properties under consideration in this PUD are unsuited for their current use. Three of the five parcels are already zoned commercial although service /office commercial rather than general commerce. To continue with the residential use would be inappropriate. Consolidation is necessary for commercial redevelopment. h. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? The applicant indicates that combing of parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard works best to effectively control development and traffic in this busy corridor. Through the Planned Unit Development Process, they note that the City can negotiate controls of land use as promotion to the community's best interests. They note that a retail land use falls reasonably with adjacent uses within this sector of the city. In general we would concur with the comments made by the applicant and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to redevelopment that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area and can be considered in the best interests of the community. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant does not make comment mment with respect to this articular guideline. P P g We do believe that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that, we believe, can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal, possibly with some modifications, could provide a quality development that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be in the general interests of the community. 2 -17 -05 Page 5 SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, this proposal is for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy to be located to the north side of a 1.53 acre site created by the combination of five existing lots (two currently R -1 and three currently C -1) proposed under this application to be rezoned to PUD /C -2. The plan calls for a shared parking, driving and access area with the property to the north, which is zoned C -1 and contains a dental clinic and parking lot. The C -1 zoned property is technically not part of the PUD, however, its use with the subject site is essential Certain improvements or changes will have to be made to the dental clinic site and are proposed in order for the applicant's plan to be accomplished. It is not clear who will be making these improvements, but they should be tied to the PUD approval and any performance agreement and financial guarantee must assure their completion. ACCESS /PARKING Access to the site was previously reviewed with the preliminary plat. Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 are under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. The applicant and the County have tentatively agreed to a proposal that will allow joint use of accesses to the CVS site and the dental clinic site. All seven existing accesses to the two county roads will be closed with two new full access points being established, one at the very northeast corner of the dental clinic site and the other at the very southwest corner of the CVS site. A "right in only" access will be established off Brooklyn Boulevard to the CVS drive lane and parking lot. That access will be approximately 140 ft. north of County Road 10. The median on Brooklyn Boulevard will be shortened at the north end and the median break on County Road 10 currently serving 3606 58 Avenue North will be closed and the left turn lane from County Road 10 to northbound Brooklyn Boulevard will be extended to just east of the proposed new access to the CVS site. This access point is about 8 ft. from the west property line and is as far back from the Brooklyn Boulevard/County Road 10 intersection as recommended by Hennepin County. Buffer and setback requirements where C -2 uses abut R -1 uses generally require a 35 ft. buffer not to be used for buildings, parking, loading or driving areas. This is a modification being sought by the applicant through the PUD process. Safety considerations are the primary justification. Other encroachments into the buffer area, although not as great, are being sought for a driving lane and are proposed to be offset by an 8 ft. high maintenance free opaque fence with a dense row of coniferous trees to offset the encroachment. The encroachment will vary from 5 ft. to 18 ft. A similar buffer /screening proposal for the retail redevelopment PUD at the northeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69 Avenue North was approved a couple years ago. Encroachments were allowed in that case where the backs of R -1 properties abutted with the development. The 8 ft. high screen fence should not be carried too close to the County Road 10 right of way line so as to cause sight obstructions on County Road 10 or for the neighboring property to the west. Parking for the CVS facility will be to the south of the building where 64 parking spaces are to be provided. The applicant has proposed an accessory parking arrangement with the dental clinic to the north to provide exclusive rights to ten more parking spaces on the dental site. 2 -17 -05 Page 6 The parking requirement for a 13,000 sq. ft. retail building is 72 parking spaces based on a parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area. The 74 parking spaces to be provided will exceed the minimum requirement provided the proper deed restriction is executed and filed with the titles to the respective properties encumbering the ten spaces for the sole use of the CVS Pharmacy. The location of the building is close to the north property line although meeting minimum setback requirements of 10 ft. The drive lane that circles the building will be on a portion of the dental clinic property as it approaches the pharmacy pick up location. Stacking for this pick up point should be sufficient and should not interfere with the traffic flow on site. The drive lane to the west of the building will be one way (south) and it is at this location that the 35 ft. buffer is encroached upon by 5 ft. The building could be shifted 5 ft. to the east and not encroach on the 35 ft. setback off Brooklyn Boulevard but it would mean a one way (north) drive lane around the east side of the building. Perhaps the applicant could look at such a modification. Then the only buffer encroachment would be at the southwest corner of the site. GRADING /DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which have been reviewed by the Director of Public Works /City Engineer. Attached for the Commission's review is his February 2, 2005 memorandum reviewing the proposed project. The Public Works Director has indicated that all water and sanitary sewer services for the houses that will be removed from the site must be done at the mains and in accordance with specifications available at the City Engineering Department. He also notes that the sanitary sewer and water mains located in the western portion of the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way are adequately sized to provide these services to the site. B -612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas. A parking lot expansion on the north side of the dental clinic site is proposed which will add parking 22 parking spaces for the clinic's use. A drive lane connecting to the access to Brooklyn Boulevard at the northwest corner of the site is also provided. This parking and driving area is to be bound by B- 612 curb and gutter. Among other things, the Director of Public works has indicated that the applicant needs to provide a storm water management plan including drainage calculations and detailed design drawings for proposed water management facilities. The proposal shows rain gardens to control the rate and quality of storm water discharges. These are located at the north end of the dental clinic site, to the west of the CVS Pharmacy building, to the east of the pharmacy building in the 15 ft. green strip area and at the southeast corner of the CVS site. Storm water management facilities have to be incorporated into the site development plans to control the total discharge rate from the site to avoid over loading the existing storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard. Connection to the storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard is subject to approval by Hennepin County. The utility plan needs to be revised to include on site storm sewer to convey excess run off from the proposed rain gardens. A utility maintenance agreement will be required with the owners of the two lots to provide for the long term maintenance of storm water facilities within the development sites. He notes that erosion control measures are to be installed prior to starting grading operations and prompt removal of all 2 -17 -05 Page 7 dirt and mud tracked on to public streets during the construction process is required. In addition, an NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before any work on the site. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. As indicated previously, the CVS site is 1.53 acres and the dental clinic site is 1.03 acres. One hundred twenty two landscape points are required under the retail type of development comprehended by the CVS proposal and 103 landscape points are required for the dental clinic site under an office type development. This amounts to 225 total points for the two sites. The applicant proposes to meet the requirement by providing a variety of plantings totaling 359 landscape points. Four mature shade trees are planned to be saved on the site and are all located along the Brooklyn Boulevard green strip, one by the CVS Pharmacy and the others in front of the dental clinic. Eleven new shade trees including Red Maple and Honey Locust are proposed along the County Road 10 green strip, the Brooklyn Boulevard green strip and at the north side of the dental clinic site. Five Spring Snow Crab Apple, decorative trees, are also planned for the north side of the dental clinic site. Twenty one coniferous trees are planned along the west property lines of the pharmacy and dental clinic sites. Seven Balsam Fur are to be planted next to an 8 ft. high maintenance free fence west of the pharmacy parking lot to offset buffering requirements in this area and 14 Black Hills Spruce are provided along the west property line of the dental clinic, apparently for screening of this commercial facility from the abutting residential. One hundred thirty one shrubs such as Alpine Currant, Arcadia Juniper, Wilton Carpet Juniper and Service Berry are provided in planting areas along the County Road 10 green strip in parking island areas of the pharmacy as well as around the perimeter area of the pharmacy. A shrub bed is also provided in the southwest region of the dental clinic site. With respect to buffering and screening, it is required along the western side of the two lots. The underlying C -2 zone requires a 35 ft. buffer and an 8 ft. high opaque screening device where it abuts R -1 zoned property. Where C -1 property abuts R -1, a 15 ft. buffer is required. A minimum of a 6 ft. high opaque fence or City Council approved substitute is required when a parking lot of more than six vehicles abuts R -1 zoned property. The applicant, as part of the PUD, is seeking modification to these requirements to allow a less than 35 ft. buffer. A 30 ft. buffer would be provided for west of the driving lane adjacent to the CVS Pharmacy building and an approximately 17 ft. buffer tapering down to 8 pp Y p g ft. at the property line is proposed to the west of the parking lot. The applicant proposes ro licant to offset these encroachments by having high an 8 ft. opaque maintenance free compost fence, similar to that at the 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard retail redevelopment, along with seven Balsam Fur (7 ft. high at planting) and shrubs in the green area. In the area where the buffer is 30 ft., a Black Hills Spruce will be planted. In the C -1 15 ft. green strip, 14 Black Hills Spruce would be provided to meet the screening requirements. The applicant t has been pp n urged to meet independently with neighboring property owners particularly in this area to explain the proposal and to get reaction to the screening and buffering plans. I have not had any indication that such contact has been made. 2 -17 -05 Page 8 It would be the staff's opinion that this area be provided with more landscaping such as coniferous trees in the 30 ft. buffer area and possibly some screen fencing where the dental clinic parking lot abuts with the R -1 property. Pedestrian access breaks in the fencing might be warranted depending on individual preferences. Meetings were conducted and proved beneficial in the PUD proposals for the retail development at 69` and Brooklyn Boulevard as well as the SuperAmerica PUD at 57` Avenue and Logan. We do not require the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings as we have in the past because the City is bound by State Legislative mandate to give an applicant an answer to a properly submitted zoning application within 60 days of its receipt. It should be noted that underground irrigation is required to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations for their proposed building. The building exterior is to be primarily a medium yellow EIFS with a red brick accent around the lower level and on columns. A decorative EIFS cornice is proposed around the top of the structure. The Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 elevations show display windows and a decorative entrance canopy is located at the southeast corner of the building. A canopy is provided over the drive up pick up location at the northwest corner of the building. Parapet walls should serve as a screen for roof top mechanical equipment. LIGHTING AND TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35 -712 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than three foot candles measured at ro ert lines abutting residentially zone property. p P Y d A review of the foot candles proposed ro g Y P p indicates that the three foot candle limitation is exceeded in a couple of spots along the west property line. Modification to the lighting plan should be made to meet these minimum standards. Freestanding light poles are proposed for the island areas south of the pharmacy building and canopy lights are proposed under the drive up. In addition, either wall mounted or lights to provide a building wash are provided around the perimeter of the pharmacy building. Our main concern, as always, is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way and that it be consistent with the standards stated above. An 8 ft. high masonry trash enclosure with a face brick exterior to match the existing building is proposed to be located along the west side of the site just north of the CVS Pharmacy building. The gates are to have cedar slats attached to a galvanized frame to provide opaque screening. The enclosure will screen a dumpster and compactor to be located within it. 2 -17 -0 5 Page 9 PROCEDURE Rezoning applications in the past that have been considered by the Planning Commission were typically referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. In this case, that would be the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. However, State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time limit from the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on January 20, 2005. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning Commission's Public Hearing. The clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than March 21, 2005. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission can hold its public hearing. This requirement makes it difficult for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission instituted a new procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group members to the meeting and are encouraging their comments and participation at this evening's meeting. A staff report will be delivered to the Neighborhood Advisory Group members at the same time that it is delivered to the Planning Commission members. Hopefully they will have time to review the matter and make comment to the Commission at Thursday evening's meeting. It should be noted again that the applicant was encouraged to meet with neighboring property owners and was provided a list of the notice being sent for public hearing. We particularly encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors abutting along the west side of the site because they would be particularly affected by their proposal. I am not aware if any contact was made. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and minimum conditions related to the development plan approval. The Planning Commission must decide and recommend as to whether or not it believes this application is sufficient. There are a number of points that we believe need to be addressed, such as screening along the west side, as well as other recommended changes. The draft resolution is presented for discussion purposes. The Commission should keep in mind that the applicant can insist on having an answer to their zoning request within the 60 day time limit established by the State Legislature. 2 -17 -05 Page 10 CN t Y;;.: i. :lrY�'! ii;.i 'i np` L.L. V ''i 1+' `tt2'.i {oti' .�.i i31r� r.-p ui 'ON �it.� ..i {tk�a�: +1i i r tom) i..r �w .15r.J_ aft/ �i3:i.;;: C) o �z z D ij ci 9 d LL COO H N �o O Li oz U I_ J— ci JAINP r.J••'T'�1 of 4 s3y.. I erg ✓.r S ��G�'� ,1.?•'G� �•i•, t r7.t1,� 'L aii.1< �M1 i r at�'[;t ''4 0 'N •3Ad JNINl3 »t. !i'� s.• A F•r1r^ �i fi r• I -:fir ra its 11 To SM nua A WAS NOR i. E ry i 1 r ct P «R +1 i t MI Y r y i A R1s y P �+}�?,r. f. Y` r- t L e r�� 4� !#Fi i �f S h f 5 :Yf 4 a W S 0 f k M IT t s, n.�°.. E., ...nce�. ,.,.xv..� �xs aaa'x�+.R�.+.•!'"s., ..,.:.,>:+f. ,L`.,e �nw«r +t.4nc:+ate'a "s.;aw° -.ry ef�«si�+ Rol WISH!! .�s..,rs�..,.�„..,.. ,:.,.n..av un d. yr -.s..: i...... h' 2 >r.r:.., «,�'�""r ,w ,-2; `'�...,.rz x R W ..•..G1"!'6` CADIS Z=>MERAFNR SlIVI EIA IKWJX MINI 9 416 I16tlY0 PL �j✓LI IJWIJ rVJ `l W OE u rl LOCATION MAP s HWY 94/696 58 TH AVENUE mP 0 SITE <_x BROOKLYN BLVD LTAR Se l� Ave N Anderson Engineering Minnesota, LLC zf oo L BROOKLYN CENTER, MN cvs/ STORE i 1683 MTM AK t mfr. aw &tOdtYX CENTER, YN O DEVELOPER: DEVELOPER: BEAR CREEK CAPITAL �r i MONTGOMERY ROAD 3RD F LOOR ONO 45242 PLAN SHEET INDEX CABttC z (513) 793 -1500 C -1 COVER SHEET z C -2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 5 05 PREWINARY PLM+s i ENGINEER: C-3 PRELIM /NARY PLAT 7 ANDERSON ENGINEERING OF MINNESOTA, LLC n 13400 15th AVE N. SUITE 8 C-4 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PLYMOUTH, 55441 R MARK 383-1 C-5 PRELIMINARY GRADING 6 DRAINAGE PLAN ILA- 5°'r 000 RAP (763) 93 -1oe4 C -8 PRELIMINARY LIT /CITY PLAN 11ANNI"MRL RAF (CONCEPTUAL WAGE ONLY, SEE SITE PLAN FOR SPECIFIC LAYWT) C -7 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ORANwR R AP ARCHITECT: C-6 SITE PHOTOMETR /CS.PLAN DATE: JANUARY, 2W5 b NIRlFI! 110$9 S A -2 FLOOR PLAN EL EVATIONS 25200 RL 25200 TELEGRAPH ROAD, P.O. 80x 5025 SOUTHFIELD, Mt 48086 -5025 COVER /LOCATION ANTHONY RICCIUTI (248) 936 -8674 c C -1 maeTnz NOf tE1U.1m I'pl tbs11R/CRp1 X RECEIVED AN Z Y' 2005 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ►RCADIS ZOING: P.U.O (CW) 30 1NG P.U.O (C AC -1 MOLP1ES) I �.AKwc x [nPmc LOi AREA 1.53 AC OT MCA: ta.+e I,OJ 2=1 TQEIRW m L01/BUR0ING COVERAGE: I.- l0! /BURgNG Co—AGE: A.Y S tYi IROT 9U 1NG MTSACK: 35' 1— BVILOING SETBACK: 5!' (EXIVTNG) 2 WM 41M MURIZA BAE BnIL01NG Y PARKING SE18a.C.: 5]' %`E BUnq»G Y a,BAC.: 13 (LANDSCAPE BUFFER) RCM -L-C SEIBACA: 10' REM 9UI— SETBACK: 10' MOT I.R.- M.AM: 13' 6� 9TFnM \15'suKxn 21eAa FRO PAPKING SETBACK: 1!' PEM PARKING SETBACK: 15 x C REM PAP NC SETBACK: D: PARK e��iO� »c MOSS A.- 1 vvs ss I I O "R SUILNNG MOSS FLOOR A.- 15.013 SF PMKi »G REHIRED: 10 SPACES (5 PER I a' M... R[OVIREO: JT SPACES (].5 PEP p o v J u a P .0 MA OKP 3000 Y (BAY 11 SPACES)) K. »c SPACES PROnOm: J SPACES I I -1 NORTH P (EKCLUMNG 10 SPACES PTIIN LE15ED I 4 G SPAC[S PROU,MO. Jt SPACES E,SENE APE 1a ss0 (1 n »augNC .O SPACES LE.MD I O' e K• w.N i E AD A» E! SPAE PIWDEO 3 n MEE» SPACE PE 15,1] S 0.3J 3A3 �MEEN SPACE 15.)16 013 x1 NN 3J,3J6 0.66 I6 .Z PE-OUS 3,3JJ 0.36 33.5 CONSULTANT: —11. KG BBRawc u.ou O.3o 19.6 eunno `a NG) 1,vv! a.3o ¢,1¢ Mderson Engineering FORE 6-1, ,.v 10o Fora ...ve6 3 _°Y° Q Mi �es ta, L Fr rl Q� sir Qi .613 CMCASTf NIB Y N TIER (1,P1CAL). r� F{� J I 1 I I I bI QI V Rt E IE IT-1 G r0 PAIN1 S. .AF NC LANE. 0 PAR—D A. 3rALL bAR61 MRO YS.SAFO A.C.IACCMSSBIE S—OLS. TR, r1C CO CRETE AAT»G wlrl COTP0. ..IS AJ 6' OC AIO E.PANS— TS AS NCCESSAP Y1 PROrmE B J RAMPS -EAS —ATE. PM ITAIL 7Km[:n :v •p` Qi J rO ....NS 1AM1c. (T -CAL) SEC —S L I riiii7 !•iii %/R SP[AALA O! 13 L POLE. TO BE NCNIFRO C at R Qi COMER PAD. ME SPE— CAION3. I Pr CT Qi —C. PAVAN. »T /NRBING Ar —I.. C— A »CES. [Ar [AC[ rzx¢\ I Ib (J 1t I L A. cvs/phamacy 4 A cvs/ D PD, E., i 7C O E E. j q 9 FFE 860.0 MPMAI[ P C S OF COP—AR I 0 i J.e s �`n ^ro Sew Aw t BROORLTw BLw <MPM »OMEN, vcN 1, 1 6 a 8 O 'SOP' Pa.P F_— 6 tt ,u .n1 "a v Y eaooKt,N aKan. Tw s1 q,1 A INTO TE-1 I DEVELOPER'. A1.N ICO AS pPECIED DL Au° b a; /P.a aEHSroNS: 1 -20 -05 PRE Aov; w¢N 6 a' P. OI O I b U 1 C PRELIMINARY PLANS S I Y O urarr maul RAF L? J o P nuvEB �r. rtAr I DATE JANUAI6T, 2005 .c awE o1vA•Aw R 1029 J(1� MA 1 ZE A[KPxt /.rAax CN »T, TO E VC BRCAx lI1LL. A SEDER re E A»E 1'xoEP PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN l SHM NAMM 58TH AVENUE NORTH s C -4 I ODl�O11S RECEIVED JA CITY OF BROOKLYN GENTEI4 SUCADIS NORTH (219) F�i^ 4M )N 1 F �.j 1 Anderson Engineering Minnesota, LLC u w 4— m t CHSVph*Tm' a FFT 86P.0 g 1 1 I 3 °............,.e..,.. ,om..� .FOa�R y' 5. r m �ynewm w •n P .ea_...,.n.c h 1 I I I i J w-- v -a..r. vw[ v la .r of Faaar..n .c .o u t i 1j 1 "i I 4;' I t 1 P 9w# IWl ..e.v.. I I T /.T" a SB 1:' 1 fO BROO59TH L1E T t LATER. W X10 1 IQN LFNaR, W ,III 1 i l 1 a..,. b DEVELOPER: 1� Al ,.s 1 nm monn'n u ,.......e.... a.. REVISIONS I -30 -05 PRELIMMIARY PLANS 1 1, 1 U107f 0000: RAP Ai GLL w .oux5 eaa.[ OFCHG: g1 I I 1 IRIJ1M0110t 0 aAr -f 1A990 9T. a GQPH R TAT DAIS JANUARY. 2005 [Ih G ((e, t).N 0007 F A M11 11029 Ywr50tA TOLL LAKE -l00- 207 -ttNV •y. PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN JOLT Mlm! 58TH AVENUE NORTH Nor aDU97n Pal RF- CEIVED JAN o �Op CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WCADIS �O,EIEYMGrJ0r0 •l 6Q IgMJN ,M NORTH (2/Q9aawF. CONSULTANT: Anderson Engineering LEGEND Minnesota, LLC 902 EXISTING CONTOUR 910 EXISTING 10' CONTOUR i PROPOSED CONTOUR i �1- PROPOSED 10' CONTOUR CL STREET CURB h CUTTER BLDG. SETBACK LINE LINE WETLAND w rr D A U EASEMENT NE pm --T WETLAND POND L CVS�IWI'�PNNACb}' t I •1 1 Z cvs/ 16.5 BUFFER LINE L I r• rr c_ FFE a 880.0 DELINEATED WETLAND LINE I' a 1 e m DRAINAGE ARROW ry g t7' M SILT FENCE 1 9 1 C A p aROpxLYM 800 8 EXISTING SAN SEWER a I t 9ROOXLM DENIER, W N. PROPOSED SAN. SEWER n "�L. DEVELOPER: 3 EXISTING p vc v o. w. —i —_i PROPOSED WM •roa-+n uw. KO Mme .v .a I -L P Y sr sw.r ru cnysy ro EXISTING STORM SEWER 1``� REYISIONS:'R PROPOSED STORM SEWER 1 -20 -05 PRELIMINARY r PLANS 11 w =t UYNf ODOR RAF JILL RNNNI 1,01. RAF o OItA 91R RAF A JANUAR Y. 7005 an NUM90G 11029 Y I r I\ I n e PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN tut .R I- REEORE pCCI.O: SIEFf NIRlEI! GOPHER STATE ONE CALL L O SIN nn.Arw SETH AKEnE NORTH C -6 p M•WE59U Tq,l NIEf pop_ ;57 -11 EA x 1 I �FOR DECEIVED jAN 2, o CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTEk &RCADIS PLA.Iwc ,rorzR I vErE ms a1 i .ecc rR MuAw I EDI .LESS DWR A E .O ALL MMRBED AREA —L BE SO0 1 V t W MW TI 1-1 AI YER ML S.ALL ['DYPLY LAIC NN I.E St EDITION Of NE I f J I 311MMA ��M 0111111 I Rl[[ IP Kean µEMCµ STANOARO FOR URSERV SEOCN' µEMCµ ASSOOARON OF I S I' a =1 MSERVUE. NO we" rO. K La! OR rJIAOC SMALL BE P�RUtE[Ep VVVM All 7 —t PR OP v.A M. 1EAOOR FNOU l—.APE UN SPEOrKD ON PLµ ALL PLA.rz [0 BE INS[A PEX nwRA[R [rs +wcw n[[ Plµ OEta I. 1/ PLµ. SE U 1 1 /1" WAS O IT— RE. YULC. PLANR.O AREAS qCRo-o1 O OE. NAICO'RON A J" OKR LANDSCAPE FµMG x S. µ.UAt/PEPE.MAL PLANTING AREAS PER OIAEA. Irk ,E'�1 11, I 1 G NSI —P l B t O M) SHRUB IRRIGATION —El TO BE DEYG.ED µ0 L v 1 y I Q� r,eovP ,x,u nws= -you AREA EU A FOR I w7 'RIACAROEw 10 REOFIR "BwSA 111 e1', cama.TANr. Anderson Engineering I AAA I L Minnesota, LLC I sI� IAw,.Aw r I P.1 1 un. I M I R s.. rY I P ws..[A 1 P I 1 Rni K w P Ow�n� P n I', v' n:u t I ....R cuR.,. I ,s cw: w.., N,..[x .m[P .w:rs us .e«o p,w 1 i L sc.r[ n I K I ..Iw wlNr A»nR I xP.[wl.us I n I cwr I I rou v »..ro.rs w ..xRSC.A.Y .M ..wRYR I R I I E 1 l Y 1 I n I M I ss,,,axwr t �1 A N Cvs t b r' j z pha may S w�c w.. 1, .....m.. ,e«` T I 1 li l I "r SECw RJP, «A.N» o. M. A. .w.+r xwx 1. I MN AVE k BROONTR BIND g w w W j i ;I- 'r L l T 'I e I 1 BRONITR CENTER, IN R «a:. .l:.r°' a s../ DEVELOPER: I b EglECRn1rA: m vl ANnPSr. Drrwx P..° n. :.P 1 i ;,`yam r' 1 Le mA,. RENAONS m wil .v -.r y 1 I 1 -20 -05 PRELIMINARY PLANS IK I Pl Au 1 Ic TR r n4 R urt I, I' 12 1 1 rtrt I yyI{{ ryryff t 1` u NLf NOQ RAE RA RAE `NIWII L OIINNq tY: RAF m a' ..u... rY[ NORTH OA7@ JANUARY, 2003 Q .....e. n.., m.. »e 1 L029 Ae 1 I I PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN GOPHER STATE ON CALL [/1l i SETH AVEtYUE NORTH �1 Baer M Iwlx nn up M, s._aaDZ I' C o YRN(SOtA TOLL tNFr eaD -lSE -1166 I l 8 SHRUB v, ANn.r. DrrAl mMIIID I: MOf AIL A4D !dl COYIA101g1 RECEIVED JAI 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OARCADIS Z= InEMAN ROM 901/ONi Fk �a am I ®I =K I la, L. a,.° p= x,i ,x.... ,.M.., 2w s-nw Wan F. OH OMSMTANT Anderson Engineering Minnesota, LLC EX1SIi 7. OFFICE I. J. CVS/ m 13013 PROTOTYPE se».cearoaN Naw BROOKLYN CENTER. NN DEVELOPER 109 Iw„ I n.., u u u RENStONS.'m ,uu .e ,r S a.r ,,e ,,o, ,am zn 1.x0 -05 PREUDWAR PLANS RNML9 YaL RAf RAE cvs r. w, __L,e ,s.v I„ ,x e „I I 'I i f'. .I „I ,.j j• I,. I:,I u w a DATE JANUARY. 2003 11029 �OTOYETRlCS PLAN SHM NORTH C-8 58TH AVENUE x N W ,c NOT RELEASED Fm RECEIVED JAN CITY OF BROOKLYN CFWTFh AI CADIS AAC001043 252001ElEWR ROAD II �1 uIOUCAN .a0p5 a_ 9M -6199 fo. 1 FRONT ELEVATION ec A CONSULTANT: 1 Anderson Engineering arw� M i n nesota, LLC di A i I -2� RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION N .en R 9fCFE r. j uf hqx E BER &WOO Sem Ate 6 glaaum blw .Y BRWNltt1 CENTER. IRI DEVELOPER: �1 REAR ELEVATION -o' a RENSIONS: 1 -20 -05 PREUMWARY PLANS UTOUI COORD: RAE 1- MGR. RAE y yj DRArNC er: RAE DATE: OCTOBER B. 2004 A6NUN6fR: .1029 ELEVATIONS s SNEEi NUUbfp: 3 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION COUMENTS: NOT RELEASED FOR CW3MR TC RIECEIVED IAN 2 0 200. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER s s it CADIS AAOOI043 25200 TELECAVP ROAD SWINEIELO, LNn11GIN '8086 Q A G a o C 9 D E Eo 5 Q 1 Q F 2 (2'8) 936 -8198 ft 1 n v-o 4 u I I i�a I s' -n•� (2'61 936 -8199 N. Y -IO [OnWn Oru a.55 11I1'� �,•Nw�rtOL.AW -y I— =4- 5 L LL p 1 LVJ I Anderson E ng neer ng i Minnesota, LLC pl j n 9 1s '1E. 1 CVS� L:J J 2.5 I it p 9OFEaM6W� 1 n+ sw 883 58. mom. ON". uN Ep DEVELOPER: OB o- (!l. .N� I I I. a f m:.RrREr.Br..o1 RE`ASIONS: C 1 -20 -05 PRELIMINARY PLANS MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN I LA ­T COMD RAF A -t,l S—E 'A -0' I I va RARNmc ucR. RAF OR— BT: RAF OATE. OCTOBER 9. 2004 Al V V .roe NVUeER. FLOOR PLAN 11029 nnE: AIidBRCt KU CM STORE LA—T [Vn WALI, I A l l XAtE .A'•� -O' FLOOR PLAN CfrYA't9Atl�AICAOIB CONTACT nA'V, 10000E ACT NY[i ANT110Nf tBCGE,R COW CONTACT p `AL' lOOOOf TOTAL BTpE AIE.4 T—ACY� emu AAE4 tNS SOOYB f00t.4 D iP E S xplE SHEET NVUBER: ACi I•NptE, 2Y.9%Mla CONTACT d'1A4� ,DOOa I I I CNUg4 FOFI u OOOnS ro R.4 1I" OL.wuKE CQlfdLl BtWL•YMSAAlVrWM•Mm Upl Y. Y! Y. A4 V. W 4 0� 10 tN1114rt 0. W4190[ Of OOOI uO 1Y 1 EwRE9 FOrt66 M (w[ �M B, FB,. A-2 IZTAC dIZA. I BFRNC! AI9lA� I TEI W. I EfwRFUprs IO.TN B!. TN V. k.. W. l- .ENTS: NOT —EA9EO FOR CONSTMIC4ON RECEIVED JAN 20 200 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ANDERSON ENGINEERING of Minnesota, LLC CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING 13400 15th Avenue North, Suite B Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Tel: 763.383.1084 Fax: 763.383.1089 January 20 2005 RECEIVED SAN �ppG Mr. Ron Warren Planning Zoning CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Narrative; CVS Development and Rezoning Application Dear Ron: We are pleased to make application for the development of a CVS /pharmacy at the corner of 58` Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard, in Brooklyn Center. We hope that the application and all associated materials are complete and to your satisfaction. The following is a brief overview of the proposed development. Additionally, we will be proposing a zoning change. Consequently, we will be addressing Brooklyn Center's guidelines for rezoning as well THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Existing Development As outlined on the attached site plan, CVS proposed to purchase and develop five lots on the northwest corner of 58 Ave Brooklyn Boulevard. Currently, each lot is occupied by single family homes with driveway access, as they apply, to each road. Two of three lots fronting 58' Ave are zoned R -1, while the remaining three parcels are zoned C -1. Additionally, three lots are to be included in this development. The same owner retains the lots, the southern two of which are developed and operating as a dental office. The third, and northernmost is currently undeveloped. All of these lots are zoned C -1. Replatting We are proposing to replat the five CVS /pharmacy lots to one parcel, and, as part of this application, the three parcels to the north are to be replatted to one parcel. Additionally, CVS /pharmacy shall enter into a lease easement arrangement with the owner of the adjacent parcel for the purpose of securing cross parking and access agreements. Access Hennepin County Transportation staff has been included in the access planning for this development. Initially, they have approved and access plan as reflected on the attached site plan. City staff has been included in this planning, and the city shall require that additional entrance signage be placed at the northernmost full access of the development. Hennepin County proposes additional adjustments to concrete medians on both 58 Ave and Brooklyn Boulevard, of which, 58 Avenues has been shown on the site plan. L A N D DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL H I G H WAYS RA I L R O A D S S URV EYING W ETLAN DS EN VIRONM ENTAL ASSESS M ENTS RECEIVED Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC Page 2 of 3 Narrative Brooklyn Center January 20, 2005 A N 2 7005 Rezoning GITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER This application shall include a proposed rezoning of all aforementioned, replatted parcels. The two new, and separate parcels are proposed to rezone to a PUD designation. The proposed CVS will adhere to underlying C -2 development guidelines, while the adjacent parcel will maintain it's current C -1 designation as it pertains to development guidelines. A PUD agreement is to be negotiated and discussed between both parcel owners and the city. This agreement shall place restrictions on future land use and development as agreed upon. Discussions concerning this agreement are forthcoming. The CVS /pharmacy development proposes to place travel lanes within the 35' screening and landscape buffer as outlined in the code. Hennepin County has asked that full access from 58 Avenue be as far to the west on the parcel as possible to allow for increased staging for the intersection. A 15', one way traffic lane from the pharmacy pick up /drop off also infringes on this setback to a lesser extent. CVS proposes to work with staff to provide additional screening measures necessary to promote the separation of land uses. Fencing and screening applications have been included on the Site and Landscape plans for your review. Additionally, this proposal has worked to preserve mature, existing trees where it can. As surveyed, the existing parking for the adjacent parcel infringes within the 15' rear setback. As proposed, the development of additional parking for this parcel continues along existing curb lines. Additional screening measures, in the form of landscape material, have been proposed to offset this. Brooklyn Center Rezoning Guidelines The following are guidelines set forth in section 35 -208 of the zoning code that perlain to this proposed development, that consider the merits of a rezone; in this case from R -1 C -1 to PUD. 1. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The site lies in proximity to high level commercial land usage. A PUD provides flexibility of development while providing the public with control over land use applications. 2. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Adjacent and to the east, a PUD with commercial land use application has been approved and enacted. 3. Can all the permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for the development of the subject property? Current zoning of affected parcels does not allow for the proposed use. 4. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Yes. To the east, commercial zoning has been increased. 5. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Measures have been taken to minimize impact of the new zoning classification on adjacent, non similar zoning, as it relates to screening. Current zoning is less restrictive to this end and a rezone as requested will require a more comprehensive screening application. 6. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The proposed CVS /pharmacy parcel seeks to combine 5 single family parcels, with driveway access to 58 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard, into one parcel with controlled access. Existing concrete medians work to restrict full movement of individual parcels. Coordination with the adjacent property owner helps to ensure safer circulation as a larger development. Given the traffic load of this intersection, a larger PUD proposal works best in the design of save traffic circulation. Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC Page 3 of 3 Narrative Brooklyn y Center January 20, 2005 Additionally, stormwater applications can be applied to a larger development, and not as individually, or smaller development proposals could. 7. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The combining of parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard works best to effectively control development and traffic along this busy corridor. Through PUD zoning, the city can negotiate controls of land use as promotion to the community's best interests. A retail land use falls reasonably with adjacent land uses within this sector of the city. Per the guidelines, it has been interpreted that items E and H are not applicable to this proposal, or are best addressed by staff. CONCLUSION This narrative works to address the proposed development with relation to zoning and platting concerns. Thank you for your assistance and guidance through this phase of our development. Sincerely, oss Fairbro er, L.A. Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC RECEIVED SAN 2 0 ?005 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER City of Brooklyn Center Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: A) Zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, B) Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning defined as a zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? B Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? E. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted "in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3) The best interests of the community? I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Section 35 -208 Revised 3 -01 Section 35 -341. 0 -2 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Public parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. b. Commercial recreational facilities of a semi -open nature such as golf courses and golf driving ranges. c. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off- street parking. 2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. Section 35 -355., PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: B City of Brooklyn Center 35 -45 July 24,2004 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD- MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. c. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD- MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3. Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights -of -way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: 1. There I are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within aPUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -46 July 24,2004 c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as maybe necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City, except that these subdivisions and plans must be in conformance with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan maybe approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -47 July 24,2004 Subm ssion of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning annin P g and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan, including temporary and permanent erosion control provisions; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35- 210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -48 July 24,2004 Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning f the roe to PUD and g property rtY conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this. ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a fonn satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35- 230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -49 July 24,2004 h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no P P P building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -50 July 24,2004 DRAFT r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -01 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005 -003 SUBMITTED BY BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC, proposes rezoning from R -1 (One Family Residence) and C -1 (Service Office) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development /Commerce) of five contiguous lots totaling 66,517 sq. ft. or 1.53 acres in area located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 (58 Avenue North) and Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy on the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, CVS Brooklyn Boulevard Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 17, 2005 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony, received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance and the City' s Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2005 -003 submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing a portion of a drive lane to encroach in a Page 1 DRA,FT 35 ft. buffer area located along the west side of the site. This modification from the C -2 standard is justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that it is offset or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved site plan. 4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City' s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this redevelopment can be considered an asset to the community. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 25 -308 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2005 -003 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance or permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements for both the CVS Pharmacy site and the dental center site. 4. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances, 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. Page 2 DRAFT 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. An off site directional sign shall be provided at the shared access on Brooklyn Boulevard indicating that it is an entrance for the CVS Pharmacy site. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owners of the CVS Pharmacy site and the dental center site shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 12. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13. No building permit will be issued for construction of the proposed building until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -002 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the C -2 underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 15. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the C -2 underlying zoning district as authorizing C -2 uses generally. This site, however, may not be used for any land uses not authorized in the Central Commerce Overlay District (CC) per Section 35 -2240 of the City Ordinances. 16. The owners of the CVS Pharmacy site and the dental clinic site shall execute a deed restriction to be filed with the titles to the respective properties encumbering ten parking spaces on the dental clinic site for the sole use of the CVS Pharmacy. 17. Cross access and parking agreements, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be executed by the owners of the two respective sites. Page 3 DRAFT 18. The P development plan an shall be modified in m g the follow manner: a. To provide additional landscaping in the reduced buffer areas such as coniferous trees to provide additional screening from the abutting R -1. b. Modification to the lighting plan so that allowed foot candle levels are consistent with Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances. Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary 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. Page 4 Member Newman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -01 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005 -003 SUBMITTED BY BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC, proposes rezoning from R -1 (One Family Residence) and C -1 (Service Office) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of five contiguous lots totaling 66,517 sq. ft. or 1.53 acres in area located at the northwest comer of County Road 10 (58' Avenue North) and Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy on the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, CVS Brooklyn Boulevard Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 17, 2005 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and j j development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance and the City' s Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2005 -003 submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing a portion of a drive lane to encroach in a Page 1 35 ft. buffer area located along the west side of the site. This modification from the C -2 standard is justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that it is offset or a P mitigated b various factors g Y contained in the approved site plan. 4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City' s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this redevelopment can be considered an asset to the community. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to !•ecommend to the City Council that Application No. 2005 -003 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance or permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements for both the CVS Pharmacy site and the adjacent dental center site. 4. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City tY Ordinances. 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas on the CVS Pharmacy and dental center sites to facilitate site maintenance. f Page 2 i j 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. An off site directional sign shall be provided at the shared access on Brooklyn Boulevard indicating that. it is an entrance for the CVS Pharmacy site. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owners of the CVS Pharmacy site and the dental center site shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 12. The applicant sball provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion cCarol permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13. No building permit will be issued for construction of the proposed building until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -002 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the C -2 underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 15. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the C -2 underlying P g Y g zoning district as authorizing C -2 uses generally. This site, however, may not be used for any land uses not authorized in the Central Commerce Overlay District (CC) per Section 35 -2240 of the City Ordinances. 16. The owners of the CVS Pharmacy site and the dental center site shall execute a deed restriction to be filed with the titles to the respective properties encumbering ten parking spaces on the dental center site for the sole use of the CVS Pharmacy. 17. Cross access and parking agreements, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be executed by the owners of the two respective sites. Page 3 18. The development plan shall be modified in the following manner: a. To provide additional landscaping in the reduced buffer areas u p g such as coniferous trees to provide additional screening from the abutting R -1. b. To add a minimum 6' high opaque screen wall along the west property line of the dental center site where it abuts with the R -1 zoning district. c. Modification to the lighting plan so that allowed foot candle levels are consistent with Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances. 19. Access to County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard are subject to approval by Hennepin County through its permitting process. Date Chair A TEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Roche and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Lund, Newman and Roche and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 4 its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005 -003 SUBMITTED BY BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC, proposes rezoning from R -1 (One Family Residence) and C -1 (Service Office) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of five contiguous lots totaling 66,517 sq. ft. or 1.53 acres in area located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 (58' Avenue North) and Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy on the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, CVS Brooklyn Boulevard Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 17, 2005 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2005 -003 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -01 on February 17, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2005 -003 at its February 28, 2005 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend that Application No. 2005 -003 submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC be approved in light of the following considerations: I. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing a portion of a drive lane to encroach in a 35 ft. buffer area located along the west side of the site. This modification from the C- 2 standard is justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that it is offset or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved site plan. 4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this redevelopment can be considered an asset to the community. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the connnunity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2005 -003 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance or permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements for both the CVS Pharmacy site and the adjacent dental center site. 4. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. RESOLUTION NO. 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas on the CVS Pharmacy and dental center sites to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. An off site directional sign shall be provided at the shared access on Brooklyn Boulevard indicating that it is an entrance for the CVS Pharmacy site. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owners of the CVS Pharmacy site and the dental center site shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 12. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13. No building permit will be issued for construction of the proposed building until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -002 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the C -2 underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 15. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the C -2 underlying zoning district as authorizing C -2 uses generally. This site, however, may not be used for any land uses not authorized in the Central Commerce Overlay District (CC) per Section 35 -2240 of the City Ordinances. 16. The owners of the CVS Pharmacy site and the dental center site shall execute a deed restriction to be filed with the titles to the respective properties encumbering ten parking spaces on the dental center site for the sole use of the CVS Pharmacy. RESOLUTION NO. 17. Cross access and parking agreements, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be executed by the owners of the two respective sites. 18. The development plan shall be modified in the following manner: a. To provide additional landscaping in the reduced buffer areas such as coniferous trees to provide additional screening from the abutting R -1. b. To add a minimum 6' high opaque screen wall along the west property line of the dental center site where it abuts with the R -1 zoning district. c. Modification to the lighting plan so that allowed foot candle levels are consistent with Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances. 19. Access to County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard are subject to approval by Hennepin County through its permitting process. February 28. 2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 11th day of April 2005 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Northwest Corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard). Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (Cl) Service /Office District zoning classification: Subdivision 216 lying nei4h of Grimme's addition wid east ef the west n d e d) „fr „t i iZl ee k i Gri.,...ne's Addition Lot 2. Block 1. CVS Brooklvn Boulevard Addition. Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development zoning classification: 4. The following properties are designated as PUD /C2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce): Lot 1. Block 1. CVS Brooklvn Boulevard Addition ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) City Council Agenda Item No. 10a City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers dy, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: February 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for Resolution of Support Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board's Legislative Initiative to Create a Viable Solution for Electronic Waste Attached is correspondence from the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services requesting a resolution of support from the City of Brooklyn Center in support of the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board's legislative initiative to create a viable solution for electronic waste before the legislative prohibition on placement of products with cathode ray tubes becomes effective in July. The matter is placed on the City Council agenda for your consideration if you would be interested, or for no action if the Council is not interested in adopting the requested resolution from the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services. Attachment 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services 417 North Fifth Street, Suite 200 612- 348 -3777, Phone Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -1397 612- 348 -8532, Fax 612-348-6500,24 hour INFO Line www.hennepin.us January 12, 2005 Mr. Dan Ruiz City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr.,Ruiz: l Electronic wastes are a growing concern for the local governments that manage solid waste and recycling programs. The electronic products of greatest concern are those containing cathode ray tubes (CRTs), such as TVs and computer monitors. These products contain from two to eight pounds of lead per unit, as well as other hazardous substances. Lead is a known public health and environmental hazard. The State acknowledged the environmental problems associated with electronic waste and adopted legislation to prohibit the disposal of CRTs in the mixed waste stream effective on July 1, 2005. Even before the ban, State and local government anticipated the need for electronic waste recycling options and worked with manufacturers and retailers for at least five years to study a range of possible solutions; however, consensus around a solution has not been reached. This year, legislative action is urgently needed to ensure that recycling options are available to all Minnesotans and that lead from discarded electronics does not end up in Minnesota's air and water. Hennepin County, along with other member counties of the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB), supports legislation that incorporates shared responsibility among manufacturers, retailers, and generators; reliable and convenient collection options; responsible recycling of CRTs; a mechanism to address the backlog of CRTs; and a preference for cost internalization or advance recycling fees over end -of -life fees and without relying on local government. I am asking for your city's support for adoption of electronic waste legislation this session. I encourage the City of Brooklyn Center to pass a resolution in support of the SWMCB's legislative initiative. A model resolution is enclosed for your consideration. I would appreciate receiving a copy of your city's resolution upon passage so it can be forwarded to legislators. Please contact me at 612- 348 -6445 or Amy. Roering at 612- 348 -8992 if you have any questions. Sincer Philip C. Eckhert Director Attachment c: City Manager Mr. Michael McCauley'✓ Hennepin County Commissioners Sandra Vargas, County Administraior John Jaimez, Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COORDINATING BOARD'S LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO CREATE A VIABLE SOLUTION FOR ELECTRONIC WASTE WHEREAS, technological advances in the areas of computers and televisions has created an inadvertent environmental problem when electronic products need to be disposed; and WHEREAS, this waste stream, called E- waste, includes old TVs and computer monitors that have picture tubes or cathode ray tubes containing 2 to 8 pounds of lead per tube; and WHEREAS, these items contribute to lead in our water, air, and soil when disposed with other mixed wastes; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts to ensure a long -term and sustainable system to ensure the proper management of TVs and computers without reliance on government -only solutions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City of Brooklyn Center supports the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board's legislative initiative to create a viable solution for electronic waste before the legislative prohibition on placement of products with cathode ray tubes (televisions and computer monitors) becomes effective on July 1, 2005. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that legislation to solve this problem should include provisions to require manufacturer responsibility, reliable and convenient collection options, responsible recycling of CRTs, a mechanism to address the backlog of CRTs, and a funding method that does not require substantial end -of -life fees. March 14, 2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. City Council Agenda Item No. 10b Page 1 of 1 m: Diane Niesen Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:49 PM To: Michael McCauley Subject: RE: Resolution request: Fish Sampling Please create and add a resolution to our next meeting agenda: Council requests that DNR conduct a fish sampling on Twin Lake to complement the recent water and sediment quality testing recently released by MPCA. This would put a priority on testing Middle Twin, then Lower, and Upper as last. If water is shown to mix equally in all basins there may not be an order of priority but I do not have that information. This is a public safety issue and if no agency is moving forward on this area, we must require formally that they do. 03/02/2005 I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING DNR TO CONDUCT FISH SAMPLING ON TWIN LAKE TO COMPLEMENT THE RECENT WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY TESTING RELEASED BY MPCA WHEREAS, the MPCA recently conducted water and sediment quality testing on Twin Lake; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn would like the DNR to conduct fish sampling on Twin Lake to complement the recent MPCA water study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the DNR conduct a fish sampling on Twin Lake to complement the recent water and sediment quality testing released by MPCA with a priority on testing Middle Twin, then Lower Twin, and then Upper Twin. March 14. 2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. City Council Agenda Item No. 10c i City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Niesen and O'Connor Y> From: Michael J. McCain City Manager Date: March 10, 2005 Re: Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal Attached is a request from the Watershed Management Commissions for comments on a proposed Capital Projects funding mechanism that involves the levying of an ad valorem tax on all properties in the Watershed to fund $125,000 per year in contribution to capital projects in the watershed. It also proposes assessing 25% of the annual project cost to the area directly benefiting and 50% to the contributing or benefiting areas. This would be a departure from past practice by the Watersheds. Currently, there is no levy for the Watershed and capital projects are undertaken only be negotiated agreement of the cities involved in a project. Cities under the current schematic have a greater degree of control over projects than in the proposed change. Benefits of the conceptual change would relate to the otential to undertake projects that p p J impact several cities with funding from the watershed. Potential issues are the decreased local control. With the Watershed, the current structure results in a direct financial benefit to the consultants by virtue of increased Watershed activity. In the cities, there is no direct financial benefit to the engineers by virtue of projects undertaken. Council Member Carmody has been attending Watershed meetings and will likely have some thoughts at the work session on the pros and cons of the proposal. Mr. Blomstrom sees some merit in getting some projects that are now languishing for lack of multi -city consensus going forward, such as the Twin Lake wetland restoration. The general proposal may need to be tightened up on determining projects that should be funded through a watershed wide ad valorem tax and imposed contribution upon impacted cities. Some thoughts would include a formula requiring that 50% of the project drainage be outside the city where the project is proposed. The concern is to insure that projects undertaken are of significance beyond an individual city. 0 301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community y Ce ter Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Telephone (763) 553 -1144 Fax (763) 553 -9326 February 14, 2005 To Member Cities: The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions and their Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have developed the attached proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy. It is submitted to you for your review and comment. Additional background material as well as a one page summary of Decision Items is provided for your use. The Commissions would appreciate your comments on the Decision Items as well as on whether you believe this is a workable approach by their April 14, 2005 meeting. The Implementation Plan and CIP sections of the Water Quality Plan are the last items to be worked out before the Commissions propose to adopt the Water Quality Plan through the Major Plan Amendment process. There will be additional opportunity for city review, comment, and refinement during that lengthy plan amendment process. Background The Commissions' joint Second Generation Watershed Management Plan included a general CIP that identified a few projects, but noted that more detail would be developed as part of the Water Quality Plan and from the series of TMDLs and Management Plans to be developed over the next several years. The draft Water Quality Plan includes an Implementation Plan of management activities and potential capital projects that have been identified in either lake management plans or the Shingle Creek Corridor Study now nearing completion. This initial Implementation Plan is expected to be updated on an ongoing basis as TMDLs and Management Plans are completed and approved. The Implementation Plan includes a variety of activities to be undertaken to achieve the water quality and other goals. These activities may be: I. Non structural activities that may be new or extensions of existing activities the cities and Commission already undertakes, such as increased street sweeping or targeted education. 2. Small projects or activities that don't meet the thresholds usually considered for capital projects, such as aquatic plant management, shoreline restoration, or small erosion control projects. 3. Capital projects such as detention pond construction, installation of in -line treatment devices, or lake treatments. Over the past year or more the Commissions, TAC, and member cities have debated how to finance the projects and activities that will be identified in the Implementation Plans. Most of the attention has been paid to item #3 in the list above, as those will be the costliest activities. The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements: 1. A negotiated apportionment of cost. 2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget. 3. Certification of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed. BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK •CHAMPLIN CRYSTAL. MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS- NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE J: \Shingle Creek \CIPs\L cities req comment on draft CIP policyldoc February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 2 of 7 The JPA further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods 41 or #2, then by 2/3 vote the Commission can decide to go forward using method #3. In the ongoing CIP funding discussions, some cities objected to method #2, given the budget and fiscal constraints that have been especially difficult in the past few years. Some cities objected to method #3, arguing that since most of their development occurred after the watershed rules took effect, their taxpayers had already paid for significant water quality improvements through higher land costs and special assessments and shouldn't have to pay for similar improvements in other cities. Some cities noted that each project is unique, and it may not be possible to develop a cost sharing strategy that can be applied to all projects as a uniform formula. The TAC met twice to discuss various cost sharing strategies and how they might be applied to three projects identified for inclusion in the Implementation Plan. An important consideration was linking capital projects funding and specific goals or benefits. Another important consideration was controlling the process so that the CIP did not become a "laundry list" of projects. Finally, it was important to provide some flexibility in the process to minimize the times a minor or major plan amendment would be required to amend the CIP. The committee considered four cost sharing strategies (see attached), and recommended its Option 4 strategy to the Commission. After reviewing all the options and the TAC recommendation, the Commission agreed that Option 4 seemed a reasonable compromise. Option 4 is based on the following principles: There is a benefit to the entire watershed from meeting water quality and management plan goals. For most projects there is a direct benefit to some area for example, lakeshore or streamside properties. For most projects there is an upstream area "causing" the need for improvements. For many projects there is a downstream area "benefiting" from improvements. Proposed Cost Sharinty Policv For any capital project, 100 percent funding from the ad valorem tax levy or from all cities based on the funding formula is and would continue to be an option to consider. However, the proposed Cost Sharing Policy would apportion the cost between the watershed as a whole, the area that receives direct benefit, and the contributing /indirect benefiting area. 1. For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission- adopted or approved TMDL or management plan: a. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the project. b. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method spread across all taxpayers within the watershed. c. The cities' share should be 75 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to the cities as follows, or in some other manner acceptable to them: i. The area directly benefiting from the project should be apportioned 25 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to cities based on, for example, proportion of lake or stream frontage. ii. Fifty percent of the cost of the project should be apportioned based on contributing/ benefiting area. The basis of this apportionment would likely be unique to each project. d. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for payment of their share, for example through special assessments, storm drainage utility, general tax levy, or watershed management tax district. February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 3 of 7 2. Capital Improvement Program policies: a. While statute requires the CIP to cover at least a 5 year period, until more TMDLs and Management plans are completed, the initial CIP should be limited to only those few projects that have been discussed for possible implementation over the period 2006 -2009. b. For the initial CIP, the Commission's share (the watershed -wide levy) should not exceed $250,000 annually. c. Since cities desire funding stability and maximum advance notice of potential expenditures, once a CIP is approved projects may only be added (or rescheduled) with approval from the affected cities. d. Prior to ordering a project, the Commission must receive consent from cities whose cost share would exceed that shown in the CIP. 3. Non capital, non recurring activity policies: a. These are operating budget issues and should be considered in the Implementation plan and annual budget but not in the CIP. b. For non recurring projects or activities, repurpose the Construction /Grant Match funds that are now part of each annual budget to allow member cities to apply for matching funds for activities such as carp removal, shoreline restoration, aquatic plant management February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 4 of 7 These tables summarize the apportionment per city that would result from the proposed Cost Sharing Policy for three projects identified in the CIP. As these projects have not yet been designed, these are general cost estimates. Project: Wetland 639W estimated cost $500,000 25% watershed; 25% direct lakeshore; 5% indirect lakeshore (Ryan); 50% contributing watershed City 25% Proposed For' 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Sh I Brooklyn Center I $16,138 I $97,225 Brooklyn Park 1 $31,275 I $100,800 Crystal I $11,000 I $97,850 Maple Grove I $21,988 I 1 Minneapolis i $8,513 1 $4,750 New Hope I $8,960 1 $29,925 I (Osseo 1 $1,688 I Plymouth 1 $18,688 1 Robbinsdale 1 $6,763 1 44,450 TOTAL 1 $125,000 1 $375,000 Project: Creek Restoration in Brooklyn Park estimated cost $500,000 25% watershed; 25% stream frontage; 50% contributing /benefiting area City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share j Brooklyn Center 1 $16,138 1 $33,750 Brooklyn Park 1 $31,275 1 $190,500 Crystal 1 $11,000 1 $23,250 Maple Grove 1 $21,988 1 $46,250 Minneapolis 1 $8,513 1 $15,000 New Hope $8,960 1 $19,000 Osseo $1,688 1 $2,250 Plymouth 1 $18,688 1 $39,500 Robbinsdale 1 $6,763 1 $5,500 TOTAL I $125,000 f $375,000 Project: Inline Treatment Devices, Crystal Lake estimated cost $400,000 25% watershed; 25% lakeshore; 50 contributing area City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share Brooklyn Center I $12,910 1 Brooklyn Park 1 $25,020 1 Crystal 1 $8,800 I Maple Grove I $17,590 1 Minneapolis $6,810 New Hope p 1 $7,160 I Osseo $1,350 1 Plymouth 1 $14,950 1 Robbinsdale $5,410 1 $300,000 TOTAL $100,000 I $300,000 February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 5 of 7 What are the Commissions proposing? That the Commissions' Implementation Plan and C1P set forth a Cost Sharing Policy for negotiating project cost sharing where, for water quality implementation projects identified in a TMDL or water resource management plan: The Commission should share 25 percent of the cost The remaining 75 percent of cost should be shared by benefiting cities based on the proposed Cost Sharing Policy. The Commissions' cost share should be funded through the ad valorem tax levy method That the Implementation Plan and CIP set forth for each proposed project the potential cost to each city based on the three means of financing projects: 100 percent ad valorem tax levy; 100 percent formula; and the Cost Sharing Policy. That the Implementation Plan require that prior to ordering a project consent be received from cities whose cost allocation under the negotiated option would exceed that shown in the Implementation Plan. How would a project under this proposal go forward? The Implementation Plan would identify the cost to each city for each project based on the three types of financing options set forth in the JPA, with the Negotiated Agreement option calculated according to the proposed Cost Sharing Policy. Prior to consideration of an individual project, the JPA requires the development of a feasibility report, an estimated cost, and the proposed allocation of costs. The proposed allocation may be based on the Cost Sharing Policy, or the cities involved may negotiate an alternate cost sharing method. A public hearing must be held allowing cities and other interested parties to comment on the project, its costs, and the proposed cost allocation. If a city's cost allocation would be in excess of the amount identified in the Implementation Plan, this new proposal would require consent from that city before a project could go forward. Does the Commission have the authority to fund projects this way? The existing Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements: 1. A negotiated apportionment of cost. 2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget (often referred to as "the formula. 3. Certification of some or all of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed. The JPA further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods #1 or #2, then by 2/3 vote the Commission can decide to go forward using method #3. How did the Commission develop this proposal? Past projects have been funded by negotiated agreement between benefiting cities. As Clean Water Act implementation turns to addressing nonpoint source pollution, there is increasing emphasis on improving water quality on a watershed basis. The TMDL and NPDES programs require local agencies, watershed organizations, and the state to partner on implementation plans that make progress toward water quality goals. As projects move from water quantity to water quality, it becomes more difficult to identify benefit, which for water quantity projects is usually defined based on contributing subwatershed, property removed from the floodplain, etc. Water quality needs and benefits don't necessarily follow from stormwater contribution. February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 6 of 7 Some watershed organizations have found the most practical way to deal with this dilemma is to spread the cost of all capital projects across the entire watershed. In the Shingle Creek /West Mississippi TAC discussions, objections to that approach were raised, arguing that since in some cities most of their development occurred after the watershed rules took effect, those taxpayers had already paid for significant water quality improvements through higher land costs and special assessments and shouldn't have to pay for similar improvements in other cities. The proposed Cost Sharing Policy was developed to find a middle ground between watershed benefit and direct benefit. Decision Items For projects financed using the negotiated agreement method: The entire watershed should contribute a share to the cost of a capital improvement project that implements a water quality improvement identified in a TMDL or approved water resource management plan. That share should be 25 percent, with the balance apportioned to cities. That share should be funded using the ad valorem tax method A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on direct benefit, for example, share of lakeshore or share of stream reach. That share should be 25 percent. A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on contributing area/downstream benefiting area. That share should be 50 percent. For the Implementation Plan /CIP: The Implementation Plan should identify what each city's cost share would be under the three funding options. The Implementation Plan should require that any upward departure from the city's share under the selected option requires consent of that city. Watershed Capital Project Cost Allocation Alternatives in the Joint Powers Agreement 100 ad valorem tax Negotiated agreement 100% formula across watershed across cities in across all cities "subdistrict responsible for JPA provides that if an improvement May be varied by 2/3 vote if agreement is not reached to one or more members receive use another method, this disproportionate benefit method would be used Proposed Cost Sharing Policy 25% Commission Contribution 75% City Contribution 25% either ad valorem tax 25% direct 50% contributing/ across watershed or benefit area benefiting area assessment apportioned to all cities using formula lake upstream watershed shoreline downstream benefiting recognizes there is a stream reach watershed benefit to the entire other lateral watershed from meeting benefit water quality goals City Council Agenda Item No. lOd OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmo Lasma sen, d O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: March 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Set Date and Time of City Council Retreat Pursuant to City Council y C cil discussion at the February 28, 2005, Work Session, it was Council consensus to set the date and time for the Council Facilitated Retreat for Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 2 p.m. at Earle Brown Heritage Center. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org City Council Agenda Item No. 10e City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution to Receive Petition for Street and Storm Drainage Improvements Along 48 Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Lilic Drive North Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution to receive a petition for street and storm drainage improvements along 48 Avenue North from Drew Avenue to Lilac Drive. The petition was submitted by a representative of Cass Screw and Machine Company, which owns parcels on both sides of the street along the length of the requested street improvements as shown on the attached figure. Drew Avenue and Lilac Drive were constructed or modified as part of the State Highway Improvements along T.H. 100 during the 2003 and 2004 construction seasons. Both streets were constructed to current City design standards with curb and gutter. The portion of 48 Avenue between Drew Avenue and Lilac Drive was not reconstructed with the TH 100 project. This section of 48 Avenue is highly deteriorated due to the age of the pavement and substandard drainage conditions. The attached petition indicates that the owner of parcels located along the section of requested street improvements agrees to pay special assessment costs as apportioned by the City. The City's Special Assessment Policy provides for approximately 70 percent of project costs to be assessed to adjacent commercial and industrial properties. The attached City Council resolution would receive the petition and direct staff to prepare an engineer's feasibility report for the requested improvements. The feasibility report would include a preliminary cost estimate for the improvements. 0 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway way Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO RECEIVE PETITION FOR'STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 48 AVENUE NORTH FROM DREW AVENUE NORTH TO LILAC DRIVE NORTH WHEREAS, the owner of real property abutting on 48 Avenue North, between the centerline of Drew Avenue North and Lilac Drive North, has submitted a petition for street and storm drainage improvements for said segment of 48 Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk for the City of Brooklyn Center has examined said petition and found it be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement as petitioned; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to further consider potential street and storm drainage improvements along said segment of 48 Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. A certain petition requesting improvements of 48 Avenue North, between the centerline of Drew Avenue North and the center line of Lilac Drive North, filed with the Council on March 14, 2005 is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity of Minn. Stat. 429.035. 2. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and that person is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost- effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. Petition for Local Improvement (100 percent of Property Owners) City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Brooklyn Center City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 We, all owners of real property abutting on 48 Avenue North, between the centerline of Drew Avenue North and the centerline of Lilac Drive North, hereby petition that such street be improved by construction of curb and gutter, storm sewers, pavement replacement and associated appurtenances pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and that the City assess the cost for said improvements in accordance with the City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy against our property described below and hereby agree to Y g P Pe rtY Y a PY the special assessment costs as apportioned by the City. Pgn tur e of Owner Description of Property 1 len 3615 48TH AVE N PID No. 1011821420044 2 3625 48TH AVE N PID No. 1011821420008 3 454748 FRANCE AVE N PID No. 1011821420007 4 4800 LILAC DR N PID No. 1011821420041 i Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. W J7AL l` iVE i�GE D Sharon Knutson MAR 0 8 2005 City Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 4. r r r r r PETITION BOUNDARY it r�. ••...+..1�� r r __a r w Ere I r f t�F G w _Irma T 4"1.1 48TH AVENUE NORTH 2002 AERIAL PHOTO PRIOR TO FRANCE AVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL \ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION March 14, 2005 Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M City Council Chambers 1. Council Member Niesen: Follow -up on last year's (2003) audit 2. Council Member Niesen: Discussion of Payroll memo 3. Miscellaneous 4. Adjourn Page 1 of 1 Michael McCauley From: Diane Niesen Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:43 PM To: Michael McCauley Subject: RE: Two Items For Next WS Agenda For next BCCC Meeting, WS Agenda, 1. Please include the Payroll Memo from Dan; for purposes of this discussion, the PERA document that accompanied our packet on this will not be needed. 2. Please present the follow -up actions indicated by last year's audit and report on actions taken to -date to comply, and the status therefore. 03/09/2005 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCa City Manager Date: March 9, 2005 Re: 2003 Audit Enclosed is a copy of the June 23, 2004 Audit Management Letter from HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Page 2 of the document lists the overview of the report issuing an unqualified opinion, finding no reportable conditions, and no findings of noncompliance. On page 3, the auditor suggests: Monitoring compliance with statutory provisions regarding an interfund loan in TIF District #2 (Earle Brown Farm TIF District) Reviewing the City's current General Fund Balance policy. The City Council received the Auditor's presentation and adopted the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Calendar year 2003 on June 28, 2004 by Resolution 2004 -85. At that same meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 2004 -91 Ratifying Advances to Cover Debt Service in TIF District No. 2 which addressed the item in the auditor's Audit Management Letter. The Financial Commission reviewed the City's General Fund Balance Policy and recommended an amendment of that policy. The Commission's work was presented to the City Council on December 13, 2004. By Resolution 2004 -189, the City Council unanimously amended the General Fund Balance Policy. Copies of the resolutions are attached. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -85 RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by State Statute and City Charter to annually produce financial statements for submission to the Office of the State Auditor by June 30; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to provide an auditor's opinion as to the representations in the annual financial statements; and WHEREAS, the attached financial statements have been audited by HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. as required; and WHEREAS, HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. opined that the general purpose financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Brooklyn Center as of December 31, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Brooklyn Center for the calendar year ended December 31, 2003, and all supporting documentation, is hereby adopted as the official financial record for the 2003 fiscal year. June 28, 2004 -M D j Mayor' r ATTEST: �6 0A" City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -91 RESOLUTION RATIFYING ADVANCES TO COVER DEBT SERVICE IN TIF DISTRICT NO.2 WHEREAS, class rate changes adopted by the State of Minnesota reduced the net tax increment received in Tax Increment Financing District No. 2; and WHEREAS, the bond resolutions and pledge agreements adopted and approved at the time of issuance of bonds for TIF District No. 2 obligated the City to pay debt service on the bonds if tax increments were insufficient and the pledge agreements provided that the City would be reimbursed from tax increments for any payments made to cover shortfalls in tax increments received and debt service payments due; and WHEREAS, during the years 2000 through 2003 the City advanced a net of $1,043,323 to cover shortfalls in increment needed to cover debt service; and WHEREAS, prior to 2000 there was due an owing for advances made in connection with TIF District No. 2 activities of $698,143; and WHEREAS, the bonds issued for TIF District No. 2 have now been retired and the monies advanced can be repaid through increments generated in TIF District No. 2; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ratify the required transfers and memorialize the amount to be repaid by virtue of the required advances to cover debt service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1) The sum of $1,043,323.63 advanced to cover shortfalls in debt service payments for TIF District No. 2 be and hereby is ratified and established in said amount to be repaid without interest from tax increments generated in Tax Increment District No. 2; 2) The sum of $698,143 advanced from other funds prior to 2000 in connection with TIF District No. 2 activities be and hereby is directed to be re -paid from TIF District No. 2 increments; and 3) The remaining fund balance in the sinking fund for the payment of the retired TIF District No. 2 bonds be transferred to TIF District No. 2 and applied to the repayment of advances made to TIF District No. 2. June 28. 2004 `Y'ate U Mayo ATTEST: A/tX City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -189 RESOLUTION AMENDING GENERAL FUND BALANCE POLICY WHEREAS, the Financial Commission has reviewed the City's General Fund Policies, specifically Section 2.3 of the Financial Management Policies Section D. Reserve Policies 1. and 2; and WHEREAS, the City has previously had a target fund balance of 45 percent of the General Fund at the end of the year for cash flow purposes; and WHEREAS, City staff has recommended for the Financial Commission's consideration an increase in that reserve target from 45 percent to between 50 and 52 percent of the General Fund; and WHEREAS, it has also been recommended that the adequate General Fund Balance Policy formula be replaced by a policy allowing the transfer of undesignated general fund monies not required for cash flow purposes to be transferred into the Street Reconstruction Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, and Technology Fund; and WHEREAS, the Financial Commission has recommended to the City Council approval of the amended Section 2.3 D. Reserve Policies 1. and 2. as set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the amended Financial Management Policies Section 2.3 D. Reserve Policies 1. and 2. be and hereby is adopted. December 13, 2004 ate d Mayor 4 ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kay Lasman and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Kathleen Carmody, Kay Tasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. f RESOLUTION NO. 2004-189 h' 2.3 Financial Management Policies D. Reserve Policies 1. The -City will fnaifitain an u o. ac�ig nated, and sec. ,e„ g ene ral Fu b a l afiee i fi ui .,t d by app lying th c AAequEAe r 1 F tia d B a l anee D ke L' ffii.1., as e by the r;t, Getinei T h e f 1 shall b e�4e�'r' c g d-- tia by t +i- Ge�ffiei The fefffialas shall be b b a l afiee a t a l eve l h h S t+ ave id d t et euffent b needs. The Citv shall manage its cash flow needs by havinv a tareet unreserved and undesignated General Fund balance at the close of each fiscal vear eaual to between SO and 52% of the next vear's General Fund oDeratin.v budget. 2. if th Git J r .nei A. n 'te t,. _e,-1, f hel, e `YY "'Y' exceed cnoi f the exeess f e L— Undesivnated General Fund monies that are not reauired for cash flow purposes may be transferred into other funds as may be appropriate or needed during the fiscal vear. It is sDecifically anticipated that transfers will be made to the Street Reconstruction Fund, Capital ImDrovements Fund and the Technolo.ev Fund when oDeratin.v results venerate a surplus of actual revenues over actual expenditures to serve as a recurring source of funding for those 3 funds. nT nNfll >r tt >n lR 4- pol�n4 Tz A AA„_>;. Latest Audited Total TT..nd T]el.,,...e at rle..e. bff 71 1997 U nfeel:-.ed P:.,:.. L osses /r..4.t add L..,..L In<.cor� Q� OF be Ad:..sted Tet.,l L 1:]..le..,.e at De..e..,he. 11 1997 1 i tems 51,194 Ad to Other Punds 195,9;4 $!5 2 Am A,. °teal to the ('_e el Fu Qu Yea n om ti 1998 �2. b b Capital and WaFiaaees ff 'cep &6 14 501 -C T_a_7 /`'____i T'.....1 u ..t Ve.... n�_ Q C Bii d i e.s .lebt e\ rTf 1 '1 l�6p M4iimwn Required Fund Balanse $5 6 ja Amount in E*ses5 of Min' Fund Balaase $97:;4; nn y A me....t A ...;l..l.le f F Cl.r /lrh e. T 7 -.e..t Ve.,� $4 4 a +t 9 l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTER December 31, 2003 1 1 Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota We have completed the 2003 audit of the City of Brooklyn Center and have issued our s� report thereon. Our Independent Auditor's Report is included in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. This Audit Management Letter provides a summary of audit results along with comparisons and trend analysis of financial data. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City. We are available to discuss this report with you. June 23, 2004 J GGp�� L HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. Certified Public Accountants i i l White Bear Lake Office: 4810 White Bear Parkway, White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110, USA Telephone: 651 426 7000 Fax: 651 426 5004 Hastings Office. 1303 South Frontage Road, Suite 13, Hastings, MN 55033, USA Telephone: 651 480 4990 Fax: 651 426 5004 HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. is a member of International. A world -wide organization of accounting firms and business advisers. City of Minnes Audit Management Letter 1 Report Summary REPORT SUMMARY r Several reports are issued in conjunction with the audit. A brief summary is as follows: Re port Report Name Elements of O verview Required Reports Comprehensive Annual Financial 0 Financial statements Unqualified "clean opinion Report (CAFR) 0 Footnotes on the Basic Financial Supplemental information Statements r Report on Compliance and Internal Internal controls over financial a No reportable conditions in Control reporting internal control Compliance with laws, a No findings of 1 regulations, contracts and noncompliance with laws, grants regulations, contracts and grants State Legal Compliance Report Results of testing certain No findings of provisions of Minnesota noncompliance Statutes Federal Single Audit Report 0 Report on compliance with a To be issued in July 2004 1 program requirements i A L,' City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Several areas highlighted for your reference include the following: The City has an excellent property tax collection rate (97% for 2003). Page 7 The special assessment collection rate was 95% for 2003. Page 8 The Earle Brown Farm TIF District has an interfund loan to finance the cash deficit. Minnesota Statutes require formal approval by the City council. We recommend the City monitor compliance with this statutory provision. Page 9 The City's current General Fund balance policy addresses working capital. There are possible additional fund balance reserve needs. We suggest the City review its current policy and determine if additional reserves and appropriate. Page 15 The City established two new capital project funds during 2003 the Street Reconstruction Fund and the Technology Fund. Page 36 The City was awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Page 50 City of klyn Cente Minnes Audit Management Letter GASB 34 The Reporting Model i GASB 34 —THE REPORTING MODEL The City of Brooklyn Center implemented for 2003 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis —for State and Local Governments. This accounting standard significantly changes how state and local governments report their financial activity to the r.�. public. In general, the new standards make government financial reporting more like the private sector. The most significant changes to the financial statements are as follows: Government -wide financial statements (Statements 1 and 2 of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) are prepared using full accrual accounting for all of the City's activities. Fund Financial Statements (Statements 3 through 8 and the Notes) focus on major l funds rather than fund types. Budeetary comparisons (Statements 10 through 12) includes both original and amended budgets. All capital assets are depreciated on the government -wide financial statements. A Manaeement's Discussion and Analvsis (MD &A) is included in the financial statements. This provides an overview and analysis of the basic financial statements. j 1. City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS The basic financial statements of the City of Brooklyn Center are presented in Statements 1 through 8 of the 2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Summar of Financial Activitv A summary of financial activity for 2003 is as follows: Increase Fund Balance (decrease) in (Deficit) Transfers Fund Balance/ Net Assets Fund Revenue Expenditures (Net) Net Assets 12/31/03 General $14,902,910 $12,620,949 ($2,194,655) $87,306 $8,017,080 Special Revenue: Housing and Redevelopment Authority 207,854 (207,854) Economic Development Authority 370,984 363,418 207,854 215,420 1,488,766 Earle Brown TIT District 838,056 55,969 (653,000) 129,087 (1,685,368) TIF District No. 3 2,390,004 579,559 (548,000) 1,262,445 6,119,290 TiF District No. 4 246,968 205,425 41,543 106,765 Police Drug Forfeiture 28,677 13,379 15,298 74,168 CDBG 201,000 201,000 City Initiatives Grant 482,338 388,991 93,347 107,398 Debt Service: General Obligation 300,715 1,036,913 771,937 35,739 907,709 Tax Increment 10,360 1,987,128 1,201,000 (775,768) 1,436,694 Special Assessment 1,188,592 1,127,556 259,079 320,115 2,976,874 Capital Projects: Capital Reserve Emergency 31,439 24,356 7,083 1,336,573 Capital Improvements 139,802 368,047 225,000 (3,245) 1,757,730 Municipal State Aid for Construction 145,459 335,609 (190,150) 430,581 Infrastructure Construction 1,651,877 1,454,747 480,000 677,130 229,179 Earle Brown Heritage Center Improvements 1,358 93,195 (91,837) 8,163 Street Reconstruction 252 283,639 283,891 283,891 Technology 275,000 275,000 275,000 Enterprise: Municipal Liquor 3,430,062 3,278,029 (100,000) 52,033 1,218,552 Golf Course 295,450 287,983 7,467 949,312 Earle Brown Heritage Center 3,406,413 3,752,816 (346,403) 9,632,799 Recycling and Refuse 217,747 223,679 (5,932) 93,937 Street Light Utility 209,319 147,293 62,026 123,344 Water Utility 1,577,309 1,639,691 (62,382) 10,517,661 Sanitary Sewer 2,947,464 2,556,224 391,240 10,400,265 Storm Drainage 1,413,366 834,965 578,401 11,453,075 Internal Service: Central Garage 1,125,893 1,247,662 (121,769) 6,775,737 Retirement 25,537 38,615 (13,078) 17,140 Compensated Absences 12,191 26,124 (13,933) 12,191 Total $37,799,396 $34,889,322 $0 $2,930,074 $75,064,506 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Cash and Investments Cash and investment balances of Minnesota cities are commonly restricted by statutory requirements and long range financial planning objectives. The following schedule illustrates this point by presenting cash and investment balances by fund type. Cash and Investment Balances December 31, Increase Fund Type 2002 2003 (Decrease) 1 General $8,370,480 $8,145,364 ($225,116) Special Revenue 5,595,051 7,125,845 1,530,794 Debt Service 5,746,017 5,383,740 (362,277) Capital Projects 3,082,308 2,789,339 (292,969) Enterprise 4,157,378 5,985,200 1,827,822 Internal Service 6,514,190 6,901,188 386,998 i Totals $33,465,424 $36,330,676 $2,865,252 1 Cash balances of Minnesota cities are commonly restricted by statutory requirements and long -range financial planning objectives. s City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Property Taxes The City has consistently experienced a solid collection rate for property taxes. A summary of the tax levy, tax rate and collection rate for the last eight years is as follows: Tax Tax Unpaid Tax Collection Capacity Taxes as of Year Levy Rate Rate 12/31/2003 1996 $6,495,206 97.9% 30.344 1997 6,746,487 98.2% 32.875 1998 7,687,124 99.4% 35.214 27,760 1999 7,896,858 99.0% 36.269 3,769 2000 8,100,334 99.3% 34.645 5,222 2001 8,199,094 96.4% 35.996 18,162 2002 10,442,170 98.0% 57.704 56,630 2003 10,355,287 97.0% 52.792 280,042 Total $391,585 The tax levy increase for 2002 relates to the elimination of HACA (the City received $1,380,000 in 2001). At December 31, 2003, the delinquent tax receivable was $391,585 representing approximately 3.8% of the 2003 property tax levy. Tax Increments A summary of tax increment activity is as follows: Delinquent Less Delinquent Receivable 2003 OSA 2003 Receivable No. Name 12/3112002 Levy TIF Fee Collections Adjustments 12/31!2003 1 Brookwood Housing $1,288 $233,217 ($801) $230,825 $2,879 2 Earle Brown Farm 52,444 702,531 (2,176) 602,132 (37,696) 112,971 3 TIF #3 Redevelopment 95,989 2,615,300 (8,329) 2,311,663 (218,672) 172,625 4 France Avenue Business Park 247,860 (892) 246,968 Total $149,721 $3,798,908 ($12,198) $3,391,588 ($256,368) $288,475 City of Minneso Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Special Assessments r The City has experienced a solid collection rate for special assessments. A summary of the collection rate for the last seven years is as follows: Special Assessment Collection Rate Collection Year Rate (1) 1996 94.7% 1997 95.4% 1998 96.9% 1999 95.4% 2000 95.7% 2001 90.7% 2002 93.1 l 2003 95.4% Current collections as a percent of current levy. 1 c� i i 1, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Interfund Pavables/Receivables Advances to Other Funds. The City had the following interfund advances at December 31, 2003: Fund Receivable Payable General Fund $105,074 MSA Construction Fund 593,069 Earle Brown TIF Fund 698,143 Capital Improvements Fund 885,000 Golf Course Fund 885,000 Capital Reserve Emergency Fund 709,969 Infrastructure Construction Fund 709,969 Total $2,293,112 $2,293,112 The interfund loan to the Earle Brown TIF Fund was established in 1987. This loan does not have a formal repayment plan. We recommend the City consider establishing terms for this loan. The interfund loan to the golf course was established in 1998. The loan is interest fee and has annual payments of $55,000 to $65,000 through 2017. For 2003 the amount paid down on the loan was $15,000. The interfund loan to the Infrastructure Construction Fund was to finance special assessments of the 2003 Happy Hollow Area neighborhood improvements. City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Due to Other Funds. Several funds have a negative cash balance at December 31, 2003. ri The funds with negative cash balances in effect "borrowed" from funds with positive cash balances. When this situation occurs, accounting standards require the cash overdraft to be reported as an interfund borrowing or "due to other funds." The City had the following due to /due from other funds at December 31, 2003: Receivable Payable Tax Increment No. 3 Fund $1,043,323 Earle Brown Farm TIF Fund 1,043,323 Capital Reserve Emergency Fund 158,933 MSA for Construction Fund 158,933 Total $1,202,256 $1,202,256 1 i TIF District Interfund Borrowines. The Minnesota Legislature amended the TIF act by requiring cities to formally approve interfund loans to TIF districts. M.S. 469.178, Subdivision 7, reads as follows: Subd. 7 Interfund loans The authority or municipality may advance or loan money to finance expenditures under section �1 469.176, subdivision 4, from its general fund or any other fund under which it has legal authority to do so. The loan or advance must be approved, by resolution of the governing body, before money is transferred, advanced or spent, whichever is earliest. The terms and conditions for repayment of the loan must be provided in writing and include, at a minimum, the principal l amount, the interest rate, and maximum term. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be L. charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under section 270.75 or 540.09. 1 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis [Effective date: This section is effective for loans and advances made after July 31, 2001, and to districts with requests for certification after July 31, 1979. lnterfund loans and advances made before August 1, 2001, are ratified and approved, subject to the following restrictions: 1) the interest accrued or paid after July 31, 2001 may not exceed the limit in this section and 2) if there is no resolution or other document created contemporaneously with the making of the loan or advance that specifies the principal amount of the loan or advance, the principal amount of the loan or advance is limited to a maximum amount equal to the largest negative cash balance that existed at any time in the fund that received the undocumented loan or advance. An authority or municipality may modify the terms of an interfund loan or advance made before August 1, 2001, to comply with any of the requirements of this section as the authority or municipality deems appropriate. We recommend the City determine that compliance with the above statute is monitored. Minnes City of Brooklyn Center, Audit Management Letter General Fund GENERAL FUND The General Fund of the City accounts for current operating expenditures common to all cities. These basic services include (but are not limited to) public safety, public works, parks and recreation, community services and general government. r� For the City of Brooklyn Center, the General Fund is financed by three major sources: 1) taxes; 2) intergovernmental; and, 3) charges for services. r� i A graph of the major revenue sources is as follows: $12,000,000 j S8,I1(IQ0(I(1 $7.(MN),I1/10 $6,0(lU,(1(X) 55,11f10,IHN1 I 1.. $4,(1I1(1,(HI(1 $3,000,W0 S I ,IHN1,0IX1 S(1 i 1999 I 2000 2Wl 2(1(2 I 2003 I i I-Inlerg...:......._ntal I $3,911,480 $4,076,169 I $4,135,282 $2,843,629 I $1.948,457 i I-*- Taxes $8.219,491 I $8,745,172 1 $8,411,513 $11,257,003 I 510,799,074 I- �AllOther $1,902,821 $1,827,025 $2,405,376 $1,990,604 $2,155,379 c i 7 i 1 City of klyn Center, Minneso Audit Management Letter General Fund The fund balance of the General Fund increased by $87,306 in 2003 as follows: Budget Actual Variance Revenue $15,408,271 $14,902,910 $505,361 Expenditures 14,543,861 13,228,170 1,315,691 Increase (decrease) before other financing sources 864,410 1,674,740 810,330 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers from other funds 784,084 607,221 (176,863) Transfers to other funds (1,648,494) (2 194 655 (546,161) Increase (decrease) in General Fund balance $0 $87,306 $87,306 As shown above, revenue was under budget by $505,361. A summary of the revenue variances are as follows: Over (Under) Budget Property taxes $261,600 Licenses and permits 214,965 Intergovernmental (1,050,728) All other 68,802 Total ($505,361) o Broo Minnes Audit Management Letter General Fund The City's December 31, 2003 fund balance was $8,017,080. The City's General Fund balance has been as follows for the past six years: $9,000,000 $8,000,000 General Fund Balance, a s $7,000,000 $6,000,000 n a ooLE:�:o3:xs4?::: MI $5,000,000 t;..� I SO R.':f;:` 1 $4,000,000 cZ r `s r $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 `SCti':v »J&:sk •rx R2 Qg� l r v «r t t v O to i 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1. 1- 4 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter General Fund A summary of General Fund balance for the past three years is as follows: General Fund Balance Component 12/31/2001 12/31/2002 12/31/2003 Reserved for advances to other funds $105,074 $105,074 $105,074 Designated for working capital 6,437,653 6,527,973 6,031,077 Subtotal 6,542,727 6,633,047 6,136,151 Reserved for prepaids 68,279 5,309 Undesignated 891,145 1,228,448 1,875,620 Total $7,433,872 $7,929,774 $8,017,080 Working Capital Reserve The City adopted an "adequate fund balance policy formula" in 1980. This policy defines the minimum fund balance elements as follows: 2001 2002 2003 1. Items not readily convertible to cash: a. Accounts receivable $67,160 $53,489 $57,908 b. Advances to other funds 105,074 105,074 105,074 c. Restricted assets 131,153 2. Amount appropriated to the ensuing year's budget 19,305 3. Amounts reserved to working capital (45% of current year budget less debt service) 6,351,188 6,474,484 5.842,016 $6,542,727 $6,633,047 $6,136,151 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter General Fund Property taxes and state aids account for approximately 86% of the revenue of the 1, General Fund. Property taxes and state aids are not received until July and December of each year (i.e., the second half of the year). As a result, the City is required to have sufficient working capital reserves at the beginning of the year to fund operations of the first half of the year. r,- A summary of the purposes of General Fund reserve balances is as follows: e�t� ��x Res�rvQ Ba�auc+��; Cash Flow Timing Difference Intergovernmental I Capital Outlay Revenue Cutbacks Replacement i l Emergency or Unanticipated Special Expenditures Projects l The City's current fund balance policy addresses working capital. As shown above, there are additional fund balance reserve needs. We recommend the City review its current policy and determine if additional reserves are appropriate. i; City o f Br oo kly n Minnes Audit Management Letter General Fund A summary of the benefits of General Fund reserves is illustrated below: t ��ne�ts c3►f �.ese�rve ���a�c Favorable bond rating Supplements revenues indicate with investment income Provides resources for Avoids temporary minor o eds or overdrafts prior to major j recel is feasibility reports P Provides the City a Avoids overburdening greater options to deal of annual budgets for certain with ne )pected events pal out lay n capital I City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS l Special Revenue Funds are a classification of funds to account for activities segregated by City policy, Federal or State statutes for specific purposes. The City maintained eight Special Revenue Funds during 2003. t Housine and Redevelopment Authoritv Fund (202) The HRA has authority to levy an ad valorem property tax for housing and redevelopment purposes. The HRA Fund accounts for property tax levies. A summary of financial activity is as follows: Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: 1 Property taxes 147,123 194,766 207,854 Intergovernmental 19,684 Total revenue and other sources 166,807 194,766 207,854 Expenditures and other uses: Transfer to EDA 166,807 194,766 207,854 Increase in fund balance 0 0 0 Fund balance January 1 Fund balance December 31 $0 $0 $0 Pursuant to MS 469.033, the HRA's levy limit is an amount equal to 0.0144% of taxable market value. �i City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds Economic DeveloAment Authoritv Fund (203) The EDA Fund accounts for the financial activity of the EDA. In addition to this fund, the Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund accounts for the EDA operations of the Center. A summary of financial activity is as follows: Economic Development Authority 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: Property taxes $205,694 $5,974 $36 Intergovernmental 1,116,842 53,623 188,495 Investment earnings 139,514 29,440 20,276 Other 57,863 49,000 89,002 Sale of fixed assets 572,266 474,648 73,175 Transfer from CDBG 13,500 Transfer from HRA 166,807 194,766 207,854 Total revenue and other sources 2,258,986 820,951 578,838 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 197,686 176,508 124,580 Supplies 33 579 2,962 Services and other charges 1,249,143 154,052 235,876 Capital outlay 1,076,721 Total expenditures and other uses 2,523,583 331,139 363,418 Increase (decrease) in fund balance (264,597) 489,812 215,420 Fund balance January 1 1,048,131 783,534 1,273,346 Fund balance December 31 $783,534 $1,273,346 $1,488,766 ;1 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds t1 TIF District No. 2 Earle Brown Farm TIF Fund (277) The Earle Brown Farm TIF Fund accounts for TIF No. 1 (Brookwood Housing) and TIF No. 2 (Earle Brown Farm). A summary of financial activity is as follows: Earle Brown TIF 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: r.Z Tax increment $1,035,349 $815,568 $833,553 Investment earnings 6,628 4,503 Total revenue and other sources 1,041,977 815,568 838,056 t, Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 4,210 18,235 Interest 30,229 11,516 26,420 Services and other charges 1,657 2,050 11,314 Transfer to Tax Increment Bonds Debt Service 1,390,000 1,410,000 653,000 Total expenditures and other uses 1,421,886 1,427,776 708,969 1 Increase (decrease) in fund balance (379,909) (612,208) 129,087 t Fund balance (deficit) January 1 (822,338) (1,202,247) (1,814,455) a Fund balance (deficit) December 31 ($1,202,247) ($1,814,455) ($1,685,368) it I _t 1 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds The fund deficit is financed by loans from the following funds: $105,074 General Fund 593,069 MSA Construction 1,043,322 TIF No. 3 $1,741,465 Total It is anticipated by management that future tax increment collections will be sufficient to repay the interfund loans. Obligations of this district decreased by $1,315,000 in 2003 as shown below: Balance Balance Bond Issue at 12/31/02 at 12/31 /03 Tax Increment Bonds of 1991 $1,975,000 $1,425,000 Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 1992 765,000 Total $2,740,000 $1,425,000 r City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds TIF District No. 3 Fund (278) A summary of financial activity is as follows: TIF No. 3 a 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: Tax increment $2,502,000 $2,067,009 $2,308,605 Investment earnings 242,268 150,386 81,399 Total revenue and other sources 2,744,268 2,217,395 2,390,004 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 8,945 28,010 i Interest 38,445 95,881 20,000 Services and other charges 507,423 768,293 531,549 Operating transfer to Tax Increment Bonds Debt Service 580,000 570,000 548,000 Total expenditures and other uses 1,125,868 1,443,119 1,127,559 Increase in fund balance 1,618,400 774,276 1,262,445 Fund balance January 1 2,464,169 4,082,569 4,856,845 i Fund balance December 31 $4,082,569 $4,856,845 $6,119,290 City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds Services and other charges for 2003 include the following: $333,333 Principal on Dale Tile TIF Note 126,851 Land acquisition 56,594 Professional Services 14,771 Other $531,549 Total The obligations of this TIF District decreased by $663,333 in 2003 as shown below: Balance Balance Bond/Note 12/31/02 12/31/03 Taxable Tax Increment Bonds of 1995 $3,410,000 $3,080,000 Dale Tile TIF Note 333,333 Total $3,743,333 $3,080,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds TIF District No. 4 Fund (279) A summary of financial activity is as follows: TIF No. 4 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: Tax increment $254,049 $139,675 $246,968 Investment earnings 1,232 Total revenue and other sources 254,049 140,907 246,968 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 4,016 3,118 Interest 104,087 Services and other charges 16,713 183,923 202,307 Total expenditures and other uses 120,800 187,939 205,425 Increase (decrease) in fund balance 133,249 (47,032) 41,543 j Fund balance (deficit) January 1 (20,995) 112,254 65,222 Fund balance (deficit) December 31 $112,254 $65,222 $106,765 Services and other charges for 2003 consist primarily of Twin Lakes Business Park TIF Note repayment. The obligations of this TIF District include the following: Balance Balance 12/31/02 12/31/03 Twin Lake Business Park TIF Note $2,131,737 $2,113,429 City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds Police Drug Forfeiture Fund (205) The Police Drug Forfeiture Fund accounts for property and /or cash seized by the police department. A summary of financial activity is as follows: Police and Drug Forfeiture 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: Investment earnings $4,822 $2,186 $1,106 Forfeiture revenue 31,950 27,587 27,571 Total revenue and other sources 36,772 29,773 28,677 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 1,405 Supplies 2,360 7,936 2,009 Services and other charges 33,563 11,370 Total expenditures and other uses 37,328 7,936 13,379 Increase (decrease) in fund balance (556) 21,837 15,298 Fund balance January 1 37,589 37,033 58,870 Fund balance December 31 $37,033 $58,870 $74,168 City of Brookfyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds 7 Community Development Block Grant Fund (204) '.1 A summar of financial activity is as follows: Community Development Block Grant Fund 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: CDBG $352,000 $201,000 Expenditures and other uses: Shingle Creek tower project 325,000 175,000 Transfer to EDA (CEAP) 13,500 CEAP 13,500 26,000 Total expenditures and other uses 352,000 201,000 Increase in fund balance $0 $0 3 r J i 1 i City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds City Initiatives Grant Fund (286) The City Initiatives Grant Fund accounts for donations received from outside parties. A summary of financial activity is as follows: City Initiatives Grant 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: Intergovernmental $206,960 $82,157 $370,800 Investment earnings 6,300 2,289 2,532 Other 24,091 57,719 109,006 Total revenue and other sources 237,351 142,165 482,338 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 12,611 6,219 52,347 Supplies 4,375 24,946 212,808 Services and other charges 178,169 136,845 123,836 Capital outlay 78,598 Interest 263 31 Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund 11,277 Total expenditures and other uses 274,016 179,318 388,991 Increase (decrease) in fund balance (36,665) (37,153) 93,347 Fund balance January 1 87,869 51,204 14,051 Fund balance December 31 $51,204 $14,051 $107,398 w Minnes City of Brooklyn Center Audit Management Letter Debt Service Funds DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Debt Service Funds are a type of governmental fund to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of interest and principal on debt (other than Enterprise Fund debt). Current governmental reporting standards do not provide for the matching of long -term debt with its related financing sources. Although this information can be found in the City's CAFR, it is located in several separate sections of the CAFR. The following schedule extracts information from sections of the 2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to provide an overview analysis of long -term debt and its related funding. Assets Pledged for Debt Retirement 12/31/2003 Scheduled Final Fund Deferred Outstanding Property Maturity Fund Description Balance Revenue Totals Principal Taxes Date Tax Increment Debt: Tax Increment Bonds of 1991 (TIF 2) $592,398 $592,398 $1,425,000 (1) 02/01/04 Refunding Tax Increment Bonds of 1992 (TIF 2) 263,027 263,027 02/01/03 Taxable Tax Increment Bonds of 1995 (TIF 3) 581,269 581,269 3,080,000 (D 02/01/11 Total tax increment debt 1,436,694 0 1,436,694 4,505,000 0 Special Assessment Debt: Street Improvement Bonds of 1994 (301) 178,007 11,362 189,369 185,000 69,536 02/01/05 Street Improvement Bonds of 1995 (302) 119,090 22,880 141,970 260,000 144,621 02/01/06 Street Improvement Bonds of 1996 (303) 464,764 139,803 604,567 620,000 359,236 02/01/(17 Street improvement Bonds of 1997 (304) 243,781 253,682 497,463 510,000 02/01/08 Street Improvement Bonds of 1998 (307) 420,390 308.435 728,825 615,000 02/01/09 Street Improvement Bonds of 1999 (308) 421,874 721,175 1,143,049 1,090,000 02/01/10 Street Improvement Bonds of 2000 (309) 516,839 350,895 867,734 575,000 02/01/11 Street Improvement Bonds of 2001 (3 10) 356,881 403,542 760,423 645,000 02/01/12 Street improvement Bands of 2003 (311) 255,248 890.740 1,145,988 1,205,000 02/01/13 Total special assessment debt 2,976,874 3,102,514 6,079,388 5,705,000 573,393 c General Obligation Debt: Refunding State -Aid Street Bonds (306) 845,000 0410106 Police and Fire Building Bonds (305) 907,709 30,789 938,498 5.875,0010 02/01/73 Total general obligation debt 907,709 30,789 938,498 6,720,000 0 Total All Debt Service Funds $5,321.277 $3,133,303 $8,454,580 $16,930,000 $573,393 Future tax increment amounts subject to valuation and tax capacity rate Fluctuations. (Z, Deferred revenue primarily consists of uncollected special assessments. i i City of Brooklyn Minnesota 0 Audit Management Letter Debt Service Funds General Obligation Bonds The State -Aid Street Bonds are funded by MSA construction allotments (principal portion) and MSA maintenance allotments (interest portion). The Police and Fire Building Bonds are funded by an annual transfer of property tax monies from the General Fund. Beginning 2004, property tax collections will be allocated directly to this fund. Special Assessment Bonds The Special Assessment Improvement Bonds are funded by a combination of resources. These funding sources include special assessments and transfers from the General Fund. A summary of 2003 financial activity is as follows: 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Total Revenues: Property taxes S S S S S S S S S f Special assessments 11,792 15,505 81.,232 101,577 109,166 282,878 130,374 125,696 294,824 1,153,044 Investment earnings 2,191 1,124 5,541 3,251 5,963 4,602 7,260 4,664 952 3 5,54 8 Transfer from other funds 66.311 72.802 119,966 259,079 Total revenues 80,294 89,431. 206,739 104,828 115, 129 287,480 137,634. 130,360 295,776 1,447671 Expenditures: Principal 90,000 80,000 145,000 110,000 115,000 165,000 80,000 85,000 870,000 Interest 12,403 14,325 34,531 25,385 26,876 55,094 28,695 25,287 20,153 242,749 Fiscal agent fees 780 2,358 1.228 2,526 720 1,211 986 1,060 3,938 14,807 Total expenditures 103,183 96,683 180,759 137,911 142,596 22005 109,681 111,347 24,091 1,127,556 Increase (decrease) (522,889 ($7,252) $25,980 (533,083) (527.467) 566.175 $27,953 S19,013 $271,685 5320,115 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds j CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS The fund balances (deficits) of the Capital Projects Funds were as follows at December 31, 2002 and 2003: Fund Balance (Deficit) December 31, Increase/ Fund 2002 2003 (Decrease) Capital Reserve Emergency $1,329,490 $1,336,573 $7,083 Capital Improvements 1,760,975 1,757,730 (3,245) Municipal State Aid for Construction 620,731 430,581 (190,150) Infrastructure Construction (447,951) 229,179 677,130 Earle Brown Heritage Center Improvements 100,000 8,163 (91,837) Street Reconstruction 283,891 283,891 Technology 275,000 275,000 Totals $3,363,245 $4,321,117 $957,872 i a i ;i 1 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Capital Reserve Emergency Fund (406) The Capital Reserve Emergency Fund was established to account for monies held in reserve for catastrophic losses or unforeseen capital items. Financial activity for the past three years is as follows: Capital Reserve Emergency Fund 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: Investment income $129,197 $47,174 $31,439 Expenditures and other uses: Expenditures 58,976 24,356 Increase (decrease) in fund balance 129,197 (11,802) 7,083 Fund balance- January 1 1,212,095 1,341,292 1,329,490 Fund balance December 31 $1,341,292 $1,329,490 $1,336,573 This fund has provided an interfund loan to the Infrastructure Construction Fund. The amount was $709,969 at December 31, 2003. City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Capital Improvements Fund (401) The Capital Improvements Fund was established to provide funds for major capital outlays. Financial activity for the past three years is as follows: Capital Improvements 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: Investment income $448,395 $60,737 $13,494 Other 5,585 21,005 126,308 Residual equity transfer from General Fund 468,000 Transfer from General Fund 245,700 285,000 225,000 Transfer from City Initiatives Fund 11,277 Transfer from Liquor Fund 110,000 100,000 z Transfer from Golf Course Fund 10,000 Transfer from Water Utility Fund 170,500 i Transfer from Storm Drainage Fund 35,000 Total revenue 1,493,180 478,019 364,802 Expenditures and other uses: Project costs 2,479,095 2,596,999 368,047 Increase (decrease) in fund balance (985,915) (2,118,980) (3,245) Fund balance January 1 4,865,870 3,879,955 1,760,975 Fund balance December 31 $3,879,955 $1,760,975 $1,757,730 This fund provides an interfund loan to the Golf Course Fund. The balance of the loan was $885,000 at December 31, 2003. of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds A summary by project is as follows: 2003 Project Expenditures Civic Center Addition (99 -08) $166,552 Paint Garage North Wall (01 -09) 3,024 Palmer Lake Trail (2002 -18) 1,500 Shingle Creek Trail (2002 -19) 1,714 Logis Upgrades 169,282 City Property Special Assessments 25,975 Total $368,047 r City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Municipal State Aid for Construction Fund (402) The Municipal State Aid for Construction Fund was established to account for the state allotment of gasoline tax collections. Transactions for the past three years have been as follows: Municipal State Aid for Construction 2001 2002 2003 Revenue and other sources: MSA $50,000 $1,337,502 $145,387 Investment earnings 134,597 26,362 72 Other revenue 3,000 Total revenue and other sources 184,597 1,366,864 145,459 Expenditures and other uses Project costs 1,096,980 1,410,361 335,609 Increase (decrease) in fund balance (912,383) (43,497) (190,150) Fund balance January 1 1,576,611 664,228 620,731 Fund balance December 31 $664,228 $620,731 $430,581 i City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Infrastructure Construction Fund (407) The Infrastructure Construction Fund was established to account for improvements financed b special assessments. The financial transactions of this fund for the past three Y P P years have been as follows: Infrastructure Construction Fund 2001 2002 2003 Revenues and other sources: Special assessments $1 02,172 $260,752 $79,207 Intergovernmental 2,487,946 332,182 Investment earnings 75,927 16,232 10,934 Other 6,823 12,843 24,554 Bond proceeds 730,000 1,196,140 Transfer from General Fund 409,044 555,000 480,000 Residual equity transfer from General Fund 225,000 766,343 Total revenue and other sources 1,548,966 4,099,116 2,123,017 Expenditures and other uses: Project costs 1,800,735 5,542,084 1,445,887 Increase (decrease) in fund balance (251,769) (1,442,968) 677,130 Fund balance January 1 1,246,786 995,017 (447,951) Fund balance (deficit) December 31 $995,017 ($447,951) $229,179 'City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds A summary by project is as follows: 2003 Project Expenditures i- River Interceptor (99-11 $30,047 Garden City Central Improvement (00 -01) 6,726 Brooklyn Blvd Landscaping (00 -21) 1,298 Southwest Area Improvements (02 -01) 187,932 France Avenue Relocation (02 -04) 197,446 Garden City South Improvement (02 -05) 115,957 Shingle Creek Trail (02 -19) 61,784 Happy Hollow Street Improvements (03 -01) 709,591 Northport Street Improvements (03 -14) 29,001 Misc. Concrete Repair (03 -14) 26,002 Brooklyn Blvd Traffic Study (03 -15) 9,339 Other 70,764 Total $1,445,887 1 Earle Brown Heritaee Center Improvements Fund (408) This fund was established to account for monies set aside for future improvements. Street Reconstruction Fund (409) I This fund was established to account for road projects which are financed wholly or in part by special assessments. This fund was formerly the Special Assessment Construction Fund. Technology Fund (410) This fund was established in 2003 to account for funds set aside for technology ti improvements or major technology renovations /replacements. City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds ENTERPRISE FUNDS The City maintains eight Enterprise Funds as follows: Municipal Liquor Golf Course Earle Brown Heritage Center Recycling and Refuse Street Light Utility Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Storm Drainage City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Municipal Liquor Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Municipal Liquor 2001 2002 2003 y� Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent j Sales $3,552,152 100.0% $3,435,556 100.0% $3,407,990 100.0% Cost of sales (2,696,042) (75.9 (2,593,765) (75.5 (2,554.637) (75.0 v Gross margin 856,110 24.1% 841,791 24.5% 853,353 25.0% Operating expenses: Personal services 333,850 9.4% 364,054 10.6% 381,227 11.2% Supplies 15,096 0.4% 11,804 0.3% 25,669 0.8% Other services 89,071 2.5% 100,202 2.9% 116,784 3.4% Insurance 8,928 0.3% 7,433 0.2% 6,997 0.2% Utilities 19,146 0.5% 11,828 0.3% 12,636 0.4% Rent 140,873 4.0% 158,702 4.6% 144,499 4.2% Depreciation 36.488 1.0% 35,580 1.0% 35,580 1.0% Total operating expense 643,452 18.1% 689,603 19.9% 723,392 21.2% i Operating income 212,658 6.0% 152,188 4.6% 129,961 3.8% Other income (expense) net 60,076 1.7% 29,506 0.9% 21072 0.6% Transfer to Capital Projects Fund (110,000) (3.1 (100,000) (2.9 (100.000) (2.9 Change in net assets $162,734 4.6% $81,694 2.6% $52,033 1.5% i i City o f Broo C en t er Minnes Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2001 2002 2003 Net cash from operating activities $329,415 $247,882 $279,607 Less urchase of capital assets (8,599 P P Subtotal 320,816 247,882 279,607 Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund (110,000) (100,000) (100,000) Investment earnings 31,727 28,169 14,956 Net increase in cash and investments $242,543 $176,051 $194,563 Cash and investment balance at December 31 $626,609 $801,993 $996,556 Comparison With Other Municipal Liciuor Stores The Office of the State Auditor SA annual] publishes "An Analysis of Minnesota r y YP Municipal Liquor Store Operations. The most recent report available is for 2002. The following analysis compares Brooklyn Center's liquor operations with those reported in the OSA report. There are twenty -one metro area cities that operate off -sale only operations. The City of Brooklyn Center ranks tenth in sales among metro area cities. It should be noted that the following comparisons are strictly a comparison of amounts reported. There are a number of factors that affect operating results that are not included in this comparison. These factors include the mix of product sold, philosophy regarding sales techniques such as high volume /lower margin, demographics and location. City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Gross Marein Analysis The gross margin of the liquor operations has averaged 21% over the past five years. Gross margin measures the sales less the direct cost of products sold. A comparison to state averages for Minnesota municipal off -sale operations is as follows: Cost of Gross Margin State Sales Sales Amount Percent Average 1999 $3,560,613 $2,694,622 $865,991 24.3% 23.6% 2000 3,584,829 2,734,318 850,511 23.7% 23.8% 2001 3,552,152 2,696,042 856,110 24.1% 24.0% 2002 3,435,556 2,593,765 841,791 24.5% 24.4% 2003 3,407,990 2,554,637 853,353 25.0% Not available Source: Minnesota Office of the State Auditor Metropolitan Area Off -Sale Operations Operatina Expenses Operating expenses for the past several years have been as follows: Percent of Sales Year Amount City State Average 1999 $632,638 17.7% 16.2% 2000 696,830 19.5% 16.5% 2001 643,452 18.1% 16.6% 2002 689,603 19.9% 16.2% 2003 723,392 21.2% Not available The City of Brooklyn Center does not compare favorably with State averages for operating expenses. City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Net Income Net income for the past several years is as follows: Amount Percent of Sales State State Year City Average City Average 1999 $249,024 $142,546 6.9% 7.5% 2000 144,577 158,275 3.9% 7.7% 2001 272,734 163,125 7.7% 7.8% 2002 181,694 155,981 5.5% 8.1% 2003 152,033 N/A 4.5% N/A Golf Course Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Golf Course 2001 2002 2003 Operating revenue: Sales $320,105 $278,664 $294,149 Operating expenses: Personal services 152,382 144,912 126,866 Supplies 25,620 29,219 19,501 Other services 80,082 64,203 88,494 Insurance 8,449 9,003 8,002 Utilities 14,264 13,758 17,208 Depreciation 14,736 13,045 27,912 Total expenses 295,533 274,140 287,983 Operating income $24,572 $4,524 $6,166 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds I i j The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2001 2002 2003 Net cash from operating activities $41,002 $13,165 $38,292 Less purchase of capital assets (5,352) (11,161) Less debt service (50,000) (50,000) (15,000) Subtotal (14,350) (47,996) 23,292 Investment earnings 6,569 2,606 1,048 Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund (10,000) Other (737) Net increase (decrease) in cash and investments ($18,518) ($45,390) $24,340 Cash and investment balance at December 31 $82,671 $37,281 $61,621 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Earle Brown Heritaee Center Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Earl Brown Heritage Center 2001 2002 2003 Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Sales $3,920,676 100.0% $3,480,535 100.0% $3,393,810 100.0% Cost of sales (490,300) (12.5 (385,341) (11.1 (1,644,608) (48.5 Gross margin 3,430,376 87.5% 3,095,194 88.9% 1,749,202 51.5% Operating expenses: Personal services 1,850,268 53.9% 1,740,912 56.2% 812,146 46.4% Supplies 215,874 6.3% 275,360 8.9% 90,368 5.2% Other services 527,716 15.4% 489,964 15.8% 340,303 19.5% Insurance 41,714 .1.2% 34,776 1.1% 30,672 1.8% Utilities 181,830 5.3% 146,742 4.7% 157,339 9.0% Rent 85,786 2.5% 88,019 2.8% 104,776 6.0% Depreciation 416,296 12.1% 582,083 18.8% 571,632 32.3% Total operating expense 3,319,484 96.7% 3,357,856 108.3% 2,107,236 120.6% Operating income (loss) 110,892 (9.2 (262,662) (19.4 (358,034) (69.1 Other income (expense) net 19,851 0.6% 20,878 0.7% 11,631 0.7% Transfer to other funds 0.0% (100,000) (3.2 0.0% Change in net assets $130,743 (8.6 ($341,784) (21.9 ($346,403) (68.4 The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2001 2002 2003 Net cash from operating activities $245,281 $324,754 $171,524 Less purchase of capital assets (38,092) Subtotal 207,189 324,754 171,524 Investment earnings 17,907 22,553 17,376 Transfer to EBHC Improvements Fund (100,000) Other (1,235) (1,098) Net increase in cash and investments $223,861 $246,209 1 88,900 Cash and investment balance at December 31 $420,897 $666,529 $855,429 of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds 1 Reevelin2 and Refuse Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: A Recycling and Refuse 2001 2002 2003 Operating revenue $211,388 $210,954 $212,271 Operating expenses: Other services 214,846 215,032 223,504 Insurance 143 179 175 Total operating expenses 214,989 215,211 223,679 Operating income (loss) ($3,601) ($4,257) ($11,408) City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Water Utility Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Water Utility 2001 2002 2003 Operating revenue $1,520,950 $1,364,076 $1,530,592 Operating expenses: Depreciation 414,965 698,773 648,115 All other 958,976 873,462 991,576 Total operating expenses 1,373,941 1,572,235 1,639,691 Operating income (loss) 147,009 (208,159) (109,099) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Income 228,755 68,864 46,717 Transfers net (170,500) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 58,255 68,864 46,717 Change in net assets $205,264 ($139,295) ($62,382) The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2001 2002 2003 Net cash from operating activities $600,261 $437,240 $628,197 Less purchase of capital assets (1,048,031) (650,253) (309,930) Less debt service (56,302) (56,302) Subtotal (504,072) (269,315) 318,267 Investment earnings 103,255 47,077 31,180 Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund (170,500) Net increase in cash and investments ($571,317) ($222,238) $349,447 Cash and investment balance at December 31 $1,763,546 $1,541,308 $1,890,755 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnes Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds 1 1 Sanitary Sewer Fund �1 The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Sanitary Sewer Fund F 2001 2002 2003 Operating revenue $2,604,998 $2,664,730 $2,870,109 Operating expenses 2,016,942 2,550,584 2,556,224 Operating income (loss) 588,056 114,146 313,885 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Income 133,475 42,950 77,355 Change in net assets $721,531 $157,096 $391,240 The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2001 2002 2003 Net cash from operating activities $612,901 $660,035 $848,185 Less purchase of capital assets (600,176) (1,023,781) (416,742) Subtotal 12,725 (363,746) 431,443 Investment earnings 59,238 42,678 26,473 Net increase in cash and investments $71,963 ($321,068) $457,916 i Cash and investment balance at December 31 $1,003,252 $682,184 $1,140,100 i of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Storm DrainaLye Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Storm Drainage 2001 2002 2003 Operating revenues User fees $1, 129,502 $1,377,638 $1 ,264,512 Special assessments 270,365 429,873 112,254 Other 26,363 Investment earnings 10,375 5,675 10,237 Total operating revenues 1,410,242 1,813,186 1,413,366 Operating expenses: Personal services 100,893 100,000 Supplies 3,153 3,861 Other services 52,613 126,656 290,369 Insurance 3,604 1,932 1,292 Utilities Depreciation 170,302 474,574 513,608 Interest 53,166 36,701 25,835 Total operating expenses 380,578 743,016 834,965 Change in net assets $1,029,664 $1,070,170 $578,401 of Cente Minnes Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2001 2002 2003 Net cash from operating activities $905,912 $1,126,992 $1,115,712 Less purchase of capital assets (845,165) (961,302) (323,343) Less debt service (243,166) (236,701) (235,835) Subtotal (182,419) (71,011) 556,534 Investment earnings 5,674 14,321 Special assessments 270,365 429,873 T'� Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund (35,000) Net increase in cash and investments $52,946 $364,536 $570,855 Cash and investment balance at December 31 ($21,315) $343,221 $914,076 Street Liuht Utility Fund This fund was established in 2003. The financial activity is as follows: Street Light Utility Fund 2002 2003 Operating revenues: User fees $213,078 $200,224 Other 8,060 Investment earnings 966 1,035 j Total operating revenues 214,044 209,319 Operating expenses: Other services 152,660 146,504 Insurance 66 789 Total operating expenses 152,726 147,293 Change in net assets $61,318 $62,026 i City of Brooklyn 'Minnes Audit Management Letter Infernal Service Funds INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Internal Service Funds are used to account for the financing on a cost reimbursement basis of goods or services provided by one department to another department within the City. During 2003, the City maintained the following Internal Service Funds: Internal Service Funds Cash and Investment Balance December 31, Fund 2001 2002 2003 Compensated Absences $733,221 $741,038 $795,418 Retirement (Post Employment Insurance Benefits) 1,543,554 1,574 1,564,375 Central Garage 4,089,161 4,198,486 4,541,395 Total $6,365,936 $6,514,190 $6,901,188 i Minnes City of Brooklyn Center, Audit Management Letter Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING The City submitted the 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) to the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for a comprehensive review. The program is a review of all facets of financial reporting for disclosure, clarity and consistency with national reporting standards. The City received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting r� Award for 2002 and intends to submit the 2003 CAFR to the Certificate Program. We commend the City for this achievement. 1 1 c S Memorandum Date: 21 February 2005 To: Michael McCauley City Manager From: Daniel Jordet Director of Fiscal Support Services Re: a) Mayor /Council Compensation for 2004 and 2005 b) Impact of PERA -DCP on FICA withholding Mavor /Council Compensation for 2004 and 2005 In reviewing payment of wages for the Mayor and Council Members in 2004 it was discovered that the increase adjustments required by Ordinance 2002 -11 (copy attached) for 1 January 2004 were not made. This was remedied by an adjustment made to the 14 January 2005 payment to the Mayor and City Council Members. In calculating that adjustment an error was made. The difference between the 2003 and 2004 wages should have been the extent of the adjustment. However, an additional week of compensation at the proper 2004 rate was added to the adjustment. This additional week of compensation should not have been included. If the Mayor and Council Members were hourly employees the adjustment would have been proper because of the ending dates of the payroll periods in questions. As salaried employees, though, the annual compensation is not subject to year end payroll period adjustments. Therefore, the Mayor and returning Council Members were given an additional week of compensation in error. Recapturing this error can be done in a number of ways. Here are two suggestions that minimize the impact of the adjustment: (A.) The 2005 compensation for the Mayor and City Council members is the beginning basis. The proper amount of the 2004 adjustment, that being the difference between 2003 and 2004 compensation, is added to this number. The result is the amount of compensation that should properly show on the W2 at the end of 2005. The amount paid as of the end of February 2005 (this is the amount including the check that will be distributed on Friday, 25 February 2005) is deducted from that amount, Council Compensationl2l February 2005 1page 2 leaving the amount remaining to be paid to the Mayor and Council Members during 2005. That remainder is divided by the, remaining 22 pay periods for 2005 and paid with each regular payroll distribution during the remainder of 2005. (B.) This option is similar to (A.) except that the remaining amount of compensation for 2005 is paid with the first and second payrolls of each month. This assures that all compensation is paid within the fiscal year for which it is appropriated. During the two payrolls that are "third" period for a month (in July and December) the Mayor and City Council would be deactivated in order to avoid confusion. Whichever option is chosen for the remainder of 2005 will be carried forward into 2006; that is, 26 bi- weekly payments or 24 semi monthly payments. The 24 semi monthly payment system would remove the risk of a future miscalculation of the final week of a fiscal year. Please let me know as soon as possible what manner of compensation correction should be implemented for the balance of 2005. If you have additional questions or would like me to be present when you discuss this with the Mayor and City Council I would be happy to be present and assist in any way. ImDact of PERA -DCP on FICA withholding Four of the five members of the Governing body have chosen to participate in the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) of Minnesota. They are eligible under the Defined Contribution Plan (DCP). DCP members are not subject to FICA withholding. Because they are contributing to a "qualifying retirement system" based on the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) they are not contributing to Social Security through FICA tax payments. As a result, these wages are not reported as FICA wages and are not used in determining future Social Security benefits. The section in the attached PERA Employer Manual section on Defined Contribution Plans gives details on this determination on pages 4 -11 through 4 -15 of the Manual. Members of the Brooklyn Center governing body have been charged for FICA taxes on these amounts in error. Therefore, it is necessary to make refund of the withheld amounts to the Mayor and Council Members involved. These refunds will not change taxable income nor will they change taxes owed or refunded in any tax year. In addition, the City will adjust its Form 941 to reflect Council Compen5ation /21 February 2005 1page 3 the errors in withholding and will recover its contributions to FICA on behalf of the Mayor and Council Members. Medicare contributions of 1.5% of wages will continue to be withheld and matched as per the OBRA of 1990. Corrections to be Made In order to avoid these kinds of mistakes in the future these steps are being undertaken: 1. You have asked that Mr. Bogany and I review the staffing responsibilities in the payroll process and, as a result, assure adequate and proper communication of and responsibility for payroll production information. We are doing so and are rewriting the job description for the payroll processing staff member. As a result of the retirement of a Finance staff member, a replacement will be hired with the requisite background, understanding and skills to handle administration of payroll functions. 2. Our communication with LOGIS on these matters will be reviewed and procedures put in place such that our staff will review and approve any changes made in our payroll information before they are implemented by LOGIS staff. If additional steps should be taken or additional information is required, please let me know. Thank you for your patience in clearing up this problem. i f Step One: Correction of 2004 Mayor Compensation What We SHOULD What What SHOULD Have Done to Happened have Happened Correct It 2003 Compensation 9,775.00 10,166.00 9,775.00 2004 Compensation 10,557.00 10,522.00 10,557.00 20,332.00 20,688.00 20,332.00 What should have been paid 20,688.00 20,688.00 20,688.00 Difference 356.00 356.00 Additional one week in 2004 202.35 at correct 2004 rate Adjustment 558.35 356.00 Step Two: Balance of 2005 Compensation What We Can Do What We Can Do (A.) (B.) Salary for 2005 10,522.00 10,522.00 Adjustment for 2004 356.00 356.00 Total to be Paid in 2005 10,878.00 10,878.00 Total Paid as of 2/28/2005 2,177.11 2,177.11 Remainder for 2005 8,700.89 8,700.89 Paid over the remaining 22 paychecks divided by 22 Paid twice per month over the remaining 10 months divided by 20 Amount of Gross Pay per Paycheck 395.50 435.04 Step Three: 2006 Compensation Annualized Compensation 10,732.00 10,732.00 2% increase over 2005 For 2006 (per pay period) 412.77 412.77 OR OR For 2006 (two times per month) 447.17 447.17 Mayorcompensation corr 1 Step One: Correction of 2004 Council Compensation What We SHOULD What What SHOULD Have Done to Happened have Happened Correct It 2003 Compensation 7,484.50 7,784.00 7,484.50 2004 Compensation 8,083.26 8,056.00 8,083.26 15,567.76 15,840.00 15,567.76 What should have been paid 15,840.00 15,840.00 15,840.00 Difference 272.24 272.24 Additional one week in 2004 154.92 at correct 2004 rate Adjustment 427.16 272.24 Step Two: Balance of 2005 Compensation What We Can Do What We Can Do (A•) (B•) Salary for 2005 8,056.00 8,056.00 Adjustment for 2004 272.24 272.24 Total to be Paid in 2005 8,328.24 8,328.24 Total Paid as of 2/28/2005 1,666.57 1,666.57 Remainder for 2005 6,661.67 6,661.67 Paid over the remaining 22 paychecks divided by 22 Paid twice per month over the remaining 10 months divided by 20 Amount of Gross Pay per Paycheck 302.80 333.08 Step Three: 2006 Compensation Annualized Compensation 8,217.00 8,217.00 2% increase over 2005 For 2006 (per pay period) 316.04 316.04 OR OR For 2006 (two times per month) 342.38 342.38 Councilcompensation corr t FINANCIAL REPORTS Enclosed are: 1. Preliminary 2004 year end statements for the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the Liquor Fund. 2. General Fund Expenditure Report for January 2005 3. January 2005 Earle Brown Heritage Center Financial Statement 4. Preliminary 2004 General Fund report SUMMERCHASE/CENTERPOINT APARTMENTS Mr. Clelland has been advised that the four previous owners of the Limited Liability Corporation owning Summerchase transferred their interests in the corporation to new ownership. CITY COUNCIL SALARY ERROR Enclosed is a memorandum from Mr. Jordet outlining the audit of the salary payments to the City Council. As detailed- in his memorandum a convergence of 27 payrolls in 2004 with a failure to increase the 2004 salary resulted in 2 errors. One related to the rate of pay and the other to the adjustment for the error in rate (the 27 periods impacted that error). As indicated the amount paid for correction was higher than what was needed based on the 27 pay periods in 2004. What we will do going forward is shift the City Council to 2 payrolls per month and cause all compensation to be paid in each calendar year for that year. For 2005, the amount of money remaining for 2005 as calculated in the sheets prepared by Mr. Jordet, will be paid out in 20 equal amounts during March December. Mr. Jordet and Mr. Boganey are also creating written checklists for more of the payroll functions. MISCELLANEOUS February 24 Department Head Planning Meeting Metro Area Managers Association March 1 District 281 Government Advisory Council INVOCATION February 28 Councilmember Carmody March 14 Councilmember Niesen March 28 Mayor Kragness April 11 Councilmember O'Connor April 25 Councilmember Lasman Page 2 02/25/2005