The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005 04-25 CCP Regular Session Public Copy AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 25, 2005 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Miscellaneous 3. Adjourn There will be no Work Session. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center April 25, 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. Teresa Rousseau, St. Alphonsus Church 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. March 28, 2005 Regular Session 2. April 11, 2005 —Study Session 3. April 11, 2005 Regular Session 4. April 11, 2005 Work Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Authorizing Approval of the Issuance of a Premises Permit for American Legion Post 630 to Conduct Lawful Gambling at 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 25, 2005 d. Approval of Site Performance Guarantee Reduction (Crossings at Brookwood 6201 Lilac Drive North) e. Resolution Designating 2005 Planting List of Allowable Boulevard Tree Species f. Resolution Recognizing the Designation of Brooklyn Center as a Tree City USA for the Thirteenth Consecutive Year; and a Proclamation Declaring April 29, 2005, Arbor Day and May 2005 Arbor Month in Brooklyn Center 7.5 Presentation -Dave McKenzie, SEH, Regarding Railroad Quiet Zone Process 8. Public Hearing Item a. Public Hearing on 40' Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements 1. Resolution Ordering Improvements and Approving Plans and Specifications for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements 2. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to continue public hearing to May 9, 2005. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -006 Submitted by Diem (Diane) Do. Request for a Special Use Permit for an Educational Use to Operate "a Cosmetology Training Center at 3260 County Road 10. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its April 14, 2005, meeting. Requested Council Action: Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -006 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. b. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -007 Submitted by C. M. Architecture, P.A. on behalf of Magnum Development Company. Request for Site and Building Plan Approval to Redevelop 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard into a Starbuck's Coffee Shop. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its April 14, 2005, meeting. Requested Council Action: is Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -007 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- April 25, 2005 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation from the Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Center Women's Club in Support of the Summer Playground Program -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. C. Discussion of CVS Decision from April 11, 2005 (Councilmember O'Connor) -Requested Council Action: -No action, informational d. Report on Opportunity Site Notification -Requested Council Action: -No action, informational. e. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, Lions Park Area South Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. f. Councilmember O'Connor Discussion of What Can Be Done to Reduce Pollution in Brooklyn Center -Requested Council Action: -No action, informational. g. Watershed Management Organization Proposed Capital Improvement Plan -Requested Council Action: -No action, informational. 11. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, and Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, and O'Connor DATE: April 25, 2005 SUBJECT: March 28, 2005, Regular Session Minutes Councilmember Niesen requested the additional following amendments to the March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes: Page: -20- CORRECTION 1 Before the paragraph beginning with: "She expressed that she believes..." should be my questions and statements: "Council Member Niesen asked what was intended by the words: "additional information." Could this include: a copy of a tax return from the owners? a copy of a tax return from all renters? bank statements of owners and /or renters? living arrangement explanations C.M. Niesen expressed that she believes it is not acceptable to have government visit the homes of owners' and ask about their living arrangements and financial interests and that to do so is government intrusion into people's lives." CORRECTION 2 Included in the paragraph beginning with: "Mayor Kragness discussed the reason a license is being required" should be my statement: "Council Member Niesen said there should be no rental inspection of owners' homes." CORRECTION 3 There is a typo within which I will point to tonight. (word: genially) 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 MARCH 28, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Council met in Informal Open Forum at 6:45 p.m. 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, Chief of Police Scott Bechthold, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Hugo Linder, 5328 Penn Avenue North, addressed the Council to provide informational materials and discuss Segway transportation. Mr. Linder said that he would like to know more about the restrictions, if any, on this type of transportation before purchasing a Segway. Mayor Kragness thanked Mr. Linder for the materials and informed him that this issue would need to be reviewed by the Police Department. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes the Park and Recreation Commission should also be involved with this review. Mayor Kragness suggested that the Police Department and the Park and Recreation Commission review Se transportation and that this p s a Segway item be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Linder asked if the City Council agendas are on the City's Website. Mr. Linder was informed that the agendas are on the City's Website and that he would be contacted personally when this item will be on an agenda. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:53 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Kragness offered 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. 03/28/05 -1- DRAFT 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, Chief of Police Scott Bechthold, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor reported that she attended the Housing Commission meeting; an open house for Northwest Communications Television; and the Legislative Breakfast on March 19, 2005. Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on March 15, 2005; the Crime Prevention meeting on March 16, 2005; and the Legislative Breakfast on March 19, 2005. She informed that the Police Awards Ceremony will be held on April 20, 2005, at Constitution Hall and that the Crime Prevention Golf Fundraising event will be held on May 20, 2005. Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the Earle Brown Days Board of Directors meeting and informed that the Earle Brown Days events will be the same as last year with the exception of the teen street dance. Mayor Kragness reminded that the slips need to be turned in for participation in the parade and expressed that she believes it is important for the Council to participate in the parade. Councilmember Niesen reported she attended the Financial Commission meeting and informed that there were two applications received for the vacancy on the Financial Commission. She expressed that she was happy to see both of the applicants were present at the meeting. She informed that she attended the Housing Commission meeting to discuss some unfinished business from last year; however, was not able to discuss her unfinished business and was asked to come back in May. Councilmember Niesen informed that she met with the City Manager on Wednesday, March 23, 2005, to discuss issues as outlined on the Agenda she sent prior to the meeting. The main discussion was on how the Council could go forward and connect better with the Planning Commission and comply with the laws as they were intended and not find difficult situations where the Council has to argue amongst themselves with deadlines and trying to meet legal requirements of the law. She discussed that she had asked Mr. McCauley where the legal publications would be published in the Sun Post Newspaper. Mr. McCauley discussed that the official notices of hearings are in the legal publications which are generally in the back of the Sun Post Newspaper. 03/28/05 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen thanked the City Manager for copying all Councilmembers (Mayor) on the Discussion Agenda she had emailed prior to their 3 -23 -05 meeting, and noted her expectation that since this meeting was communicated to all, that similar process be followed for all Members (Mayor). Councilmember Niesen asked the City Manager if he did so inform all Councilmembers (Mayor) of the agenda he has had with Councilmembers. The City Manager responded that this was the first time he had received an Agenda. Mayor Kragness reported that she attended a hearing at the State Office Building in St. Paul regarding the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bill to request an extension on the City's TIF District No. 3. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman to approve the agenda and consent agenda with minor amendments to the minutes. Councilmember O'Connor requested that Consent Items 7e, Resolution Designating Additional Depositories of City Funds and 7f, Resolution Selecting the No Waiver Option for Statutory Tort Liability, be removed and placed as Council Consideration Items 9j and 9k. There was discussion regarding the process for removing consent agenda items. Councilmember O'Connor read the language provided on the agenda describing that no separate discussion of consent agenda items will be discussed unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of the Council Consideration items. Councilmember Lasman amended her motion to approve the amended consent agenda, seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the March 14, 2005, Study, Regular, and Work Session minutes with the minor amendments suggested at the Study Session meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL Air Conditioning Associates 689 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul Air Masters Inc. 5885 149' Street West, Apple Valley Alliant Mechanical, Inc. 3650 Kennebec Drive, Eagan 03/28/05 -3- DRAFT Amtech Lighting Services 6077 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Stillwater Associated Mechanical 1257 Marshall Road, Shakopee Assured Heating A/C 334 Dean Avenue East, Champlin CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp 13562 Central Avenue NE, Anoka Centraire Htg A/C 7401 Washington Avenue South, Eden Prairie Cronstroms Htg A/C 6437 Goodrich Avenue, St. Louis Park D J's Heating Air Cond 6060 LaBeaux Avenue NE, Albertville Dave's Appliance Htg Air 1601 37 Avenue NE, Columbia Heights Ditter, Inc. 820 Tower Drive, Medina Excel Air Systems 2075 Prosperity Road, Maplewood Fireside Hearth Home 2700 Fairview Avenue North, Roseville Flare Heating 9303 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley Golden Valley Heating 5182 West Broadway, Crystal Guyer's Builder's Supply 13405 15 Avenue North, Plymouth Harris Companies 909 Montreal Circle, St. Paul Heating Cooling Two Inc. 18550 County Road 81, Maple Grove Home Energy Center 15200 25 Avenue North, Plymouth Kleve Heating Air 13075 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie Knott Mechanical Inc. 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South, Golden Valley LBP Mechanical Inc. 315 Royalston Avenue North, Minneapolis Lux Company 5217 84 Avenue North, Brooklyn Park M D Plumbing Htg Inc. 1105026 1h Street NE, St. Michael Marsh Heating A/C 6248 Lakeland Avenue North, Brooklyn Park McDowall Company P.O. Box 1244, St. Cloud Metropolitan Mech Contr 7340 Washington Avenue South, Eden Prairie Modern Hearint A/C 2318 First Street NE, Minneapolis P H Services, Co. 1601 67 Avenue North, Brooklyn Center Perfectin Heating Air Cond 13951 N. 50 Street, Stillwater Pierce Refrigeration 19202 nd Avenue South, Anoka Quality Refrigeration 6237 Penn Avenue South, Richfield Riccar Heating A/C 2387 Station Parkway NW, Andover River Sity Sheet Metal Inc. 8290 Main Street NE, Fridley Robert's Repair Maintenance 3701 Yates Avenue N, Crystal Rouse Mechanical 7320 Oxford Street, St. Louis Park Royalton Heating A/C 412085 th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Schadegg Mechanical, Inc. 225 Bridgepoint Drive, So St. Paul Sedgwick Htg A/C 8910 Wentworth Avenue South, Minneapolis Standard Heating A/C 410 W Lake Street, Minneapolis Superior Heating A/C Elec 21322 d Avenue North, Anoka Thermex Corporation 3529 Raleigh Avenue South, St. Louis Park Utility Partners, Inc. 9901 Indigo Trail, White Bear Lake Wenzel Heating A/C 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy, Eagan Yale Mechanical, Inc. 9649 Girard Avenue South, Minneapolis 03/28/05 -4- DRAFT RENTAL Renewal (All of the following had no calls for service): 5935 Dupont Avenue North (Single Family) Gina Dumas 4707 Eleanor Lane (Single Family) Todd Vlasaty 5521 France Avenue North (Single Family) Leng Wong 5948 Fremont Avenue North (Single Family) Ryan Coller 6777 Humboldt Avenue North (Single Family) Andrey Ryvlin 1531 Humboldt Place North (Single Family) Kwi Ha Wong 4700 Lakeveiw Avenue North (Two Family) Nancy Dahlquist Initial: 5447 Bryant Avenue North (Single Family) M'Hamed Ben -El- Haffaf No Calls for Service The Lilacs (a,b, and c) a. 5800 Logan Avenue North (1 Bldg., 22 Units) Farnaz Toussi b. 5820 Logan Avenue North (Single Family) Farnaz Toussi c. 5830 Logan Avenue North (1 Bldg., 22 Units) Farnaz Toussi 1 Disturbing the peace call I Crime against family call SIGN HANGER Crosstown Sign 16307 Aberdeen Street NE, Ham Lake Install This Awning Sign 5345 4"' Street, Brooklyn Center Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler, Route, St. Paul Signart Company 2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights Spectrum Sign Systems, Inc. 2025 Gateway Circle, Centerville Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle, Maple Grove Twin City Sign Images 17201 113' Avenue North, Osseo Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -52 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 03/28/05 -5- DRAFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-07,2005 STREET SEAL COATING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-53 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-07,2005 STREET SEAL COATING for the adoption of the foregoing re ution was dul seconded b The motion o e o resolution p Y Y Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS This item was removed to Council Consideration Item 9j. 7f. RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY This item was removed to Council Consideration Item 9k. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 8a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-005 SUBMITTED BY GREG A. NELSON. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INSTRUCTIONAL USE IN THE I -1 (INDUSTRIAL PARK) ZONING DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS MARCH 10, 2005, MEETING. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed educational uses require a special use permit and that the Planning Commission reviewed the application submitted by Greg A. Nelson and is recommending its approval. He informed that the applicant was present if the Council had any questions. Councilmember Niesen uestioned if the Council would be voting on this tonight since there is q g g nothing to rezone. Mr. McCauley discussed that this is a use that is permitted under the zoning code and does not require any change in the underlying zoning. A special use permit simply requires approval with a motion as opposed to an ordinance. 03/28/05 -6- DRAFT I Councilmember Carmody questioned what the sign policy would be with respect to 69` Avenue North. Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren discussed that the sign policy deals with a resolution that was adopted by the Council back in the early 1970s with respect to the visibility of wall signs on 69 Avenue North. Councilmember Lasman questioned if the extension that was asked for by the applicant had been worked out. Mr. Warren informed h believes eheves nothin g needed to be worked out and that he was not aware of any problems. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if this special use permit is approved, will the space continue its use as a Karate Company rather than industrial. Mr. Warren discussed that the special use permit is for an instructional use and under the classification of use, a special use permit would be granted and go with the land. He further stated that the land could revert to industrial and would not require a special use permit. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -005 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. The special use permit is issued to Greg A. Nelson on behalf of Minnesota Martial Arts Academy, Inc. as an instructional use in martial arts with incidental associated retail sales. No other use, not comprehended by this application shall be permitted. Any expansion or major alteration to the use shall be subject to an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Tenant improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 4. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances and the city's sign policy with respect to 69 Avenue North. Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. PRESENTATION ON HENNEPIN COUNTY JOINT COMMUNITY AND POLICE PROJECT 03/28/05 28/05 7 DRAFT Chief of Police Scott Bechthold discussed that during the fall of 2004, he and Chief Wade Setter from the City of Brooklyn Park were asked to make a presentation to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners regarding concerns of the interaction of law enforcement personnel and immigrant and minority group residents of the two cities. As a result of this presentation, the Hennepin County Board directed Hennepin County staff to collaborate with the communities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to create a plan to address the expressed issues. From this collaborative planning process the following four components emerged: 1. Organizational training for cultural awareness and sensitivity; 2. Community training for cultural awareness and sensitivity; 3. Police /community liaisons; and, 4. Police cadet training. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on March 22, 2005, approved a contingency transfer of $400,000 to the 2005 Human Services and Public Health Department and the Community Corrections Department to support the efforts of the communities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to fund this plan. The dollars for all program components will be distributed by the Hennepin County departmental accounts for activities as indicated in the plan. A community based oversight group will guide the delivery of services as described. Mayor Kragness questioned how many cadets would be included with the project. Mr. Bechthold informed there would be one for the City of Brooklyn Center and one for the City of Brooklyn Park. Mayor Kragness expressed that she would see it being beneficial to having more than one ethnic Y g P g g background for the two cities and using them as translators since the language barrier seems to be the biggest problem. Mr. Bechthold informed that he believes there would be some cross sharing of resources if that is presented and that the cities now have officers who are bilingual and share those resources. Mayor Kragness asked if the cultural liaison would be from Hennepin County. Mr. Bechthold discussed that is correct and that they will be Hennepin County Corrections employees assigned to the City with direct oversight by the City they are assigned. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the City has groups identified to participate in the project or if that is part of the job to seek groups. Mr. Bechthold discussed the project management team is now in the process of developing the criteria to recruit and create an application process for members of the community to take part on this multicultural advisory board which will be a joint and recruitment effort between the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. 03/28/05 -8- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked Mr. Bechthold if he and the Police Chief from Brooklyn Park solicited this money from Hennepin County. Mr. Bechthold informed they did not and that there was an invitation from the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners asking them to participate in discussions regarding this topic. As part of that meeting they requested staff to work with the communities and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to develop a plan. That in turn created a plan which had been presented to the Hennepin County Board and the Board approved that plan and also approved a contingency transfer of that $400,000 to the budgets for the community corrections and the social services budget. Mayor Kragness questioned what the age group would be for the cadet program. Mr. Bechthold discussed that it would be open to eighteen and older. Councilmember Carmody questioned how the funding would work for the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council since they are not a member. Mr. Bechthold informed that the funding is from Hennepin County. 9b. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATIONS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS PARADE AND THE ENTERTAINMENT IN THE PARKS PROGRAM Mayor Kragness informed the Lions Club will be celebrating their 50th Anniversary in April and that she would like to express gratitude for their support to youth and the Earle Brown Days events in Brooklyn Center. Mayor Kragness read the resolution expressing appreciation for the donation of $7,000 to be used to support the annual Earle Brown Days Parade and the Entertainment in the Parks Program. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -54 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATIONS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS PARADE AND THE ENTERTAINMENT IN THE PARKS PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 3-9,2005, TO BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Declaring April 3 -9, 2005, to be Community Development Week. 03/28/05 -9- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adopt Proclamation Declaring April 3 -9, 2005, Community Development Week. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she believes the citizens of Brooklyn Center are the community developers and the ones that maintain and development their own property. She does not believe there is a need to ask citizens to bow down to the Community Development Department and appreciate them; and that it should be the other way around, bowing down to the citizens. Mayor Kragness discussed that proclamations are to provide awareness of what the City staff does for the City and declares a week for departments. She believes this is the least that the Council can do and that this proclamation is very much in order. Councilmember Niesen questioned if other departments receive proclamations. Mayor Kragness discussed that in the past the Council had adopted proclamations for other departments. Councilmember Niesen expressed she hears Councilmember O'Connor and does not really understand the purpose for proclamations. In her mind she does not know why the Council does not have a whole City staff proclamation. She believes that all viewpoints at this table should be appreciated and respected. Mayor Kragness expressed she believes that out of courtesy to the people who work for the City this is something the Council does for each department. Councilmember Lasman expressed that every department appreciates a thank you and a word of appreciation. She does not believe this is bowing down and acknowledges a job being done well. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9d. RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU JR. Mr. McCauley discussed this is the item prepared by Mr. Neu summarizing the Council's Retreat that took place in February. Councilmember O'Connor informed that she had some corrections she would like incorporated. On page 3, after number 18, the sentence reading "After discussion, the participants identified the following "big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005:" she would like to have the wording changed to the following: After discussion, some of the participants identified the following "big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005. She believes she did not say that most of the items were her top priorities. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the language could be amended to the majority of the participants since it was the majority of the Council. Councilmember O'Connor said that would be fine. 03/28/05 -10- DRAFT is Councilmember O'Connor asked that page 4, fourth paragraph, be amended to read the following: It was concluded by some of 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. Councilmember Carmody again questioned if the language could be amended to the majority. Councilmember O'Connor said that would be fine. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she does not believe this is something that needs to be voted on and will be voting against. Councilmember Niesen questioned if acceptance of this is something of a required action by the Council. Mr. McCauley informed that this constitutes a meeting and the minutes of that meeting. It has been the practice of the Council to adopt this report and memorializes an official Council document of what direction is taken based on the meeting. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she believes it is an important thing to vote on because the Council needs to be aware of what was written for approval. Councilmember Carmody discussed she believes that this report does not reflect the views of any one person; it is just a majority finding for a written record. Councilmember Lasman pointed out that the resolution is resolving that the Council agrees this is a summary of key observations and conclusions as prepared by Carl Neu. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-55 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 9e. REQUEST OF WATERSHED COMMISSIONS FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COST SHARING POLICY Mr. McCauley discussed the watersheds are proposing that the watershed commissions undertake major capital projects with a different approach than what has been used in the past. In the past, capital projects have been undertaken by negotiated agreement between cities or undertaken individually by a city. The watershed is proposing that the watershed itself would come up with a capital improvement plan to address major watershed capital projects. 03/28/05 -11- DRAFT They are also proposing a funding mechanism that involves twenty -five percent of their project costs raised through an ad valorem tax levied against all the property in the watershed that would be submitted to Hennepin County. Hennepin County would levy the tax on behalf of the watershed. Seventy -five percent of the project would then be paid for by communities; and of the seventy -five percent, twenty -five percent of the whole cost would be paid by cities directly benefiting and having area. The remaining fifty percent of the total cost of the project would be paid by the benefiting communities upstream and downstream. Mr. McCauley discussed that he attempted to break this down into those components with a draft letter so that the Council could provide the watershed with some response. The first issue is broken down into the initial question of does the Council want to respond to the watersheds that undertaking capital projects through the watershed is a concept that the Council would support; or the draft alternative is the Council does not support the watershed becoming involved. If the watershed undertakes some of these projects the City is looking at multi jurisdictional projects that have languished such as the wetlands of Twin Lake which impact Crystal and Brooklyn Center. He informed that in number eight of the draft letter supporting the concept he picked a number to provide a cap formula so that one city would not be overburdened by costs assessed in a five year capital project. In number nine he separated out the issue of an ad valorem tax as part of that component. Councilmember Carmody informed she had a few questions regarding the draft letter and said that she would go in order and is as follows: 1. Is the deterioration on the creek restoration in Brooklyn Park due to the flow or just Y J due to the homeowner? Mr. McCauley discussed that the more you have development upstream from the creek bed, the greater the flow and that flow going though undermines the creek bed to a degree that is not the result of what Brooklyn Park is necessarily doing as much as what Maple Grove is doing by putting more water in. The issue of bank restoration becomes the question of scope and what is causing it. 2. Clarification on the definition of the general amount. Mr. McCauley discussed that the watershed has proposed a certain level of effort over the three years that are set forth in their example. What he is suggesting is that if the Council comes in with a plan they would be asking for response to it with a rough estimate of ad valorem tax so that the amount cannot double or increase. 4/5. Does the watershed have a list complete for the capital improvements and will the plan sunset automatically? 03/28/05 -12- DRAFT Mr. McCauley discussed there is not a completed list and that this would be a rolling five and ten year with no sunset. Councilmember Carmody questioned if by agreeing to this would the Council be agreeing to the ad valorem tax indefinitely. Mr. McCauley discussed that this is proposed as an indefinite undertaking. 6. Does the Council limit that they do not want to pay for unnecessary work? Mr. McCauley discussed he believes that is where the funding issues come into effect. 8. Does the Council have to agree on an amount and can the watershed change the amount without the Council agreeing to it? tn' g Mr. McCauley discussed this would be a rational way to approach putting a limit on it. He pointed out that this number is not exact and is only being used for discussion to suggest some formula be adopted capping a city's potential cost. Councilmember Carmody asked if the letter from the City of Plymouth's City Manager is talking about the amount of water or the amount of pollutants. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes they are looking at flow rate which would not be a measure of water quality. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the twenty -five percent ad valorem tax would be charged by Hennepin County to all citizens of Hennepin County. Mr. McCauley discussed that it would be charged on all the taxable property within each of the watersheds. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she believes this i a 1 money p s s of of o ey and that she wished all the cities would take a simpler approach to reducing pollution and runoff by not having so many impervious surfaces. If chloride is the problem in Shingle Creek she wished that the City could reduce the amount of salt along with other cities doing the same thing. Councilmember Niesen informed that she wanted to preface her remarks and make some points since she lives on Twin Lake and has attended Shingle Creek Watershed meetings, along with having worked on some environmental issues and donating to environmental agencies. Looking at this she understands the intent is to clean up water. Minnesota has some waters that have been identified as impaired. It is her understanding that there was impaired water somewhere in Minnesota and in order to get some action done there was a model of local control issued as a watershed district with taxing authority. These people are appointed by the County Commissioners. Per a publication from the League of Minnesota Cities dated February 16, 2005, there was a bipartisan group of Legislators from the House and Senate who introduced the major initiative called "Impaired Waters Legislation This Legislation has not been passed but what is on the table is to collect more than $75 Million in new revenue for Minnesota. The goal is to identify surface water that is polluted, to develop a scientifically based plan identifying where the sources of that pollution can be reduced, and fund the efforts needed to 03/28/05 -13- DRAFT achieve reductions in pollute load. She believes this came after the Shingle Creek Watershed started talking about funding projects. Some of the issues working with what the watershed sent needs to be addressed. First of all, Minnesota has started this new initiative and will be collecting money. She believes that Brooklyn Center has just as much right to have projects worked on as any other city in the State since Twin Lake has been on the top ten most polluted list due to the Joslyn site. Looking at the proposal for Shingle Creek they are talking about funding three types of activities; non structural ones, small projects, and capital projects. At this time the capital projects is where the money is going to be and it is incredibly expensive to work on water quality issues. Looking at funding capital projects that are covered by the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) there are negotiated portion of costs, an apportionment of costs to the cities in the same portion of their operating budget, and certification of the cost to the County for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed in those nine cities. The Shingle Creek Watershed is proposing another idea which was premised on four principals: one, there is a benefit to the entire watershed meeting water quality and management plan goals; two that for most projects the benefit to some areas; three for most projects reisab s g P J P J there is an upstream area causing the need for improvement; and four, from any project there is a downstream area that benefits from improvement. Getting into the cost sharing policy it talks about if they do a capital project they figure that the commission share should be twenty -five percent and the City's share should be seventy- five percent of whatever a project costs. She believes that potentially if this is not limited and if this is not worded in a different way, she could possibly receive a bill. She inquired since the City is in a JPA how the Shingle Creek Watershed could write any suggestion that cities should do this model and questioned how that would work because the City does not have the ability. Y Mr. McCauley discussed if special assessments are levied they would have to be levied by the City, meaning that the City has complete control over what funding mechanism it would use. As discussed two weeks ago, nobody was suggesting that special assessments against properties on a particular body of water was likely to be a practical source of money. The Council itself would have to decide that it wanted to go in that direction. Staff's suggestion looking at it is that the storm drainage utility would be the source of funding. In order to show some specific benefit to the I i property. to sustain a special assessment would require far more energy and t ime than t would b e worth for any money that would be generated by trying to specially assess individual properties. Councilmember Niesen questioned the word likely that had been used. If it is not in writing that this is the way it is going to happen and the Shingle Creek Watershed is using their taxing ability to give this taxing ability to cities, she thinks that is a fine line there and is not sure, but the way the watershed districts are set up, they have the ability adding some tax on and she does not know if they have the ability of saying that they are now giving the cities the ability to add this tax. Mr. McCauley informed that what he believes the are saying is the City will be responsible for paying seventy-five Y Y g n' P P Y g tY percent of the cost of a project and that it is up to the cities themselves to determine what 03/28/05 -14- DRAFT mechanisms they want to use. The watersheds cannot dictate to the City that it use any of the things they have listed as a laundry list of potential tools available to a City. Each council controls in its own city how it raises its match. The only portion the watersheds have the ability to impose is that they can follow the Statutory requirements and submit to Hennepin County a proposal that Hennepin County levy a general ad valorem tax on all properties in the watershed boundaries. The watershed cannot impose an individualized special method of funding. It can only, if it follows all of those requirements, have Hennepin County on its behalf do a general ad valorem tax. Councilmember Niesen asked how the Shingle Creek Watershed acted all of these years since its inception funding capital projects. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere discussed that they have not funded any capital projects. Mayor Kragness asked that the Council focus on the draft letter back to the watershed. Mr. McCauley suggested that first the Council has to decide if they like the idea of the watershed doing capital projects. If yes, then he would suggest discussing and deciding on each of the separate items listed in the draft letter. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. McCauley to clarify number eight. Mr. McCauley discussed what number eight is trying to do is simply suggest that a plan, if it is adopted, put a target maximum amount of money that any city would have to pay in any five year rolling period so that there is no undue burden on any one city in the course of any five year consecutive period. Mayor Kragness asked who would be in favor of supporting the proposed ad valorem tax. Councilmember Niesen informed that she believes the impaired water Legislation that is on the table is important and with the tough economy and Brooklyn Center being known for not having high value houses, she would support working on water initiatives, but not in a vacuum. Councilmember Carmody informed that she had sent an e -mail to Craig Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations assigned to the environmental issues at the League of Minnesota Cities, to ask for clarification regarding the impaired water Legislation. In a response provided it was made clear that they were seeking big projects. Twin Lake would not be high on their list. The only thing mentioned in the Metro area that could get funding is the Met Council's sewage treatment plant. She believes the City will not see funding in the near future and that the good thing about the ad valorem tax and going through the watershed is one way to get things done. She informed that she supports this, otherwise it will not get this done for years and the problem will just get worse with the cost continuing to go up. She still has some questions and serious concerns about certain issues; however, in theory the City needs to start moving ahead. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would like projects to get done; however, there are a lot of issues in the process of identifying who benefits and pays. She would say yes if the costs were going to be spread over the nine cities in the watershed since they would be able to do it anyways. 0/ 3 28/05 -15- DRAFT Mayor Kragness informed that she would support the draft letter. Councilmember Lasman informed that if the City moves in the direction of supporting she does have some concerns about the costs and inquired how the per capita would coincide with the City's storm drainage utilities ability to fund now. Mr. McCauley informed that he was only putting that language regarding the per capita in as a place marker for discussion and that it would equal about one year debt service on the bonds that will retire. The City would have the capacity to pay ten dollars per capita without having to raise the storm water utility. Councilmember Lasman questioned if a sunset or language requesting a reevaluation could be added. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council wanted to add language that if the watershed undertakes this and develops it, it should reexamine and ask for comments in five or ten years, that would certainly be a very appropriate comment. Councilmember Lasman informed that rather than saying do support or do not support, she would like to say do support with conditions. Councilmember O'Connor informed she agrees with the draft alternative that states the City does not support the proposed undertaking to have the watershed impose an ad valorem tax and to assess the cost of capital projects against the cities in the watershed. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she has many issues and does not want to give the watershed any indication that whatever else they are proposing was being accepted by submitting the draft letter. Councilmember Carmody suggested that the Council provide the City Manager comments to add or Y gg P Y g delete to the draft letter by April 11, 2005. Councilmember Niesen questioned the watershed's plan. Mr. LeFevere discussed that last year the watershed adopted its comprehensive storm water management plan which is an overall plan for the district. An element of that one piece is the capital improvement program. The capital improvement plan at that time was developed and the plan simply said that it was going to be developed in the future as the water quality plans became more fully developed. Councilmember Carmody left the table at 9:07 p.m. and returned at 9:09 p.m. Councilmember Lasman expressed that she thought providing comments to the City Manager by April 11, 2005, would be a good idea for him to come up with an accumulative letter that the Council can review at the April 11, 2005, Study Session meeting. Mayor Kragness asked that this item be placed on the April 11, 2005, Study Session agenda. Mr. McCauley discussed that he would incorporate the Council's comments with the first draft and set them forth in a fashion for approval of each item. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to table this item to the April 11, 2005, Study Session meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 03/28/05 -16- DRAFT 9f. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. McCauley informed this item along with item 9g, Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for 48` Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements, relate to one project and could be approved under one motion. He discussed this is the petition project that Cass Screw Machine had requested. The two resolutions would accept the engineer's feasibility report and calls for public hearings on doing the improvements and on special assessments which would be assessed against Cass Screw Machine. Mr. Greenwald, Cass Screw Machine, addressed the Council to express thanks. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-56 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9g. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48TH AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -57 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48TH AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 03/28/05 -17- DRAFT 9h. EXPANDING AUDIT FOR PAYROLL SAMPLING Mr. McCauley discussed that at the last meeting Councilmember Niesen brought up possibly having additional payroll sampling and audit. The Auditor had prepared materials describing what the standard audit includes and describing what additional work the Auditor would be willing to undertake. Councilmember Niesen informed she had spoken with the Auditor and found out that it is very common for City Councils to ask them to do an in -depth study of a certain area every year. They are proposing to spend a total of $2,600 to $3,500 to see if the City's payroll is being processed correctly. She believes this would be an assurance for payroll and for the City Manager to know that the payroll is being done correctly. She discussed an error with her payroll and expressed that she believes it is the Council's job to expend money out of the City's budget to make sure that payroll is being done correctly. She believes that if the Council were not to authorize this the Council would be doing a travesty of injustice to the taxpayers since there has been a problem with payroll. Mayor Kragness informed she had a discussion with the City Manager and they believe it would a benefit to approve this audit sampling. Mr. McCauley discussed that the audit is essentially the Council's. If the Council feels that it wishes to have this done, he does not oppose. Mayor Kragness expressed she believes that if the Council approves this, it would put aside any of the questions that have been raised and if the Auditor does come up with some problems then they have a direction to work at. Councilmember O'Connor asked Councilmember Niesen if when she found the discrepancies in her FICA deduction if they straightened out the error. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she did not believe to the full extent. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the Auditor would find more problems with FICA by adding an additional twenty -five people to audit. Mr. McCauley discussed that the FICA problem was found by the City's Finance Director, not the Auditor. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the Council had to do all three parts suggested by the Auditor. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Auditor had set forth three separate tasks; additional sampling, obtain direct deposit report and reconcile a complete payroll, and meet with the City payroll clerk and obtain detailed narrative of the clerk's knowledge of withholding rules. Mr. McCauley informed that the Auditor indicated he could do more than twenty -five or fewer than twenty -five and that the price would move off of that estimate based on the audit amount. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would only be in favor of procedure one and would not be in favor of going with more than that. 03/28/05 -18- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen expressed she believes the amount is low and that it is important to know if is being done correctly. Sh payroll g ct y. e would agree with eliminating procedure three but definitely thinks procedures one and two, for a possible cost of $1,000 plus the report, is well worth the money spent. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to go ahead with procedures one and two, eliminate procedure three, and have the Auditor proceed on that basis thereby saving the possibility of $600 to $800. Motion died due to lack of a second. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to approve all three procedures outlined by the Auditor. Motion died due to lack of a second. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes the engagement management and report preparation would be cheaper by only doing procedure one and would assume that the maximum cost would be approximately between $1,500 and $2,000, which is as far as she would like to go with this audit sampling. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to go ahead with procedure one and the engagement management and report preparation. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9i. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON- CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12- 901,12 -902 AND 35 -111 Mr. McCauley discussed that staff is suggesting some changes in the rental dwelling and zoning ordinances to streamline dealing with duplexes and/or two- family dwellings. There is a significant amount of units now nonconforming in the City and staff has found that the enforcement of the licensing provisions of Chapter 12 relative to these properties has become extremely time consuming and often contentious. This item is on the agenda for two possible actions. One would be to introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading and set second reading and public hearing on June 13, 2005; and the second would be to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would like to hold off on the first reading, have the Housing Commission review the ordinance, and then put this item on the June 13, 2005, agenda for approval of first reading. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would not be inclined to set a first reading without thoroughly debating this housing law. She believes this is an important issue and with the Council being the highest authority to deal with housing issues, she would like to move ahead with holding off on setting the first reading at this time. She asked that these ideas presented move forward to the meeting with the Council and Commission Chairs and informed that she will be meeting with the Housing Commission in May to further discuss this issue since she has many concerns. 03/28/05 -19- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody suggested that Councilmember Niesen prepare a memo of her concerns to present to the Housing Commission in April so they have time to review her concerns and to discuss in May; and informed that she would like to see the memo before it goes to the Housing Commission to make sure it would be something that the Council agrees on. Mr. McCauley discussed that the text before the Council this evening does not change the policy on rental housing. It attempts to address people who are not subject to the rental housing ordinance in the first instance. This would be an orderly mechanism that relates to establishing and maintaining proof of a nonconforming use. It does not relate to how you rent property or the rules of renting property, it is simply allowing an orderly mechanism for people to do that. With respect to the technical application of license fees, it clarifies that if somebody applies for a license they do not get the entire fee back; they get the fee less what had been spent in terms of staff time up to that point. Councilmember Niesen questioned the sixty plus duplexes and/or two family dwellings that are nonconforming. Mr. McCauley discussed that they were built at a time when the zoning would allow the construction of a two family dwelling and /or duplex. Some of those areas were rezoned to R -1. When it was zoned R -I they became nonconforming uses. Councilmember Niesen discussed her property that was built as a mother -in -law apartment which she believes is very common in Minnesota and that she does not know why someone would come into her R -1 zoned house and call it a duplex. She said that the City of Brooklyn Center stands alone on this area and many other areas of the rental ordinance and that is why she wants to discuss this further with the Housing Commission. Councilmember Niesen questioned the following language proposed in the ordinance amendment: An owner of a duplex dwelling that is being occupied but is not being let for lease or rent is not required to secure a rental dwelling license provided such owner files with the City a certification, in a form provided by the City, that no rent or any other consideration is being paid, given or provided, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of the occupants to the owner. The owner shall provide such additional information in support of such certification as may be required by the Compliance Official. She expressed that she believes it is not acceptable to have government intrusion into people's lives. Mayor Kragness discussed the reason a license is being required is to help pay with staff's time having to inspect two units. Councilmember Niesen debated about that even being an issue. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes this matter would not be an appropriate discussion for the joint meeting with Commission Chairs. She suggested that the timeline be discussed with the Commission Chairs; and that at this time the Council direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. 03/28/05 -20- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. LeFevere informed that this would also amend the zoning code and questioned if the Council would be referring this to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCauley responded that this issue would be sent to the Planning Commission as well. 9J. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS Councilmember O'Connor questioned how many brokers the City had. Mr. McCauley discussed that currently there is one depository which is Wells Fargo; however, the City can deal with nine different agents as outlined in Resolution No. 2005 -02. She inquired how much the City has invested and what the City pays in fees for them handling the money. Mr. McCauley discussed that be believes roughly $20 Million or more and that the City does not buy any individual corporate bonds. When acquiring something there is going to be some type of transaction cost. She inquired how much is paid to Wells Fargo. Mr. McCauley informed that he could get more information on the exact specifics of her questions. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the City's loss or profit over the years on the investments. Mr. McCauley discussed that that the City generally holds to maturity and there is no loss or gain in terms of what was purchased. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -58 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 9k. RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding this resolution. Mr. McCauley discussed that Minnesota Law provides that there are Statutory limits under State Law that a person may recover for a tort claim against a governmental body. If the City purchases insurance that would provide more than $300,000 worth of coverage, which does happen in terms of aggregate coverage limits, adopting this resolution would indicate the purchase of insurance through the League Insurance Trust should not be deemed a waiver of the Statutory requirements. This results in a lower premium for the insurance coverage. 03/28/05 -21- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-59 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:01 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 03/28/05 -22- 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 APRIL 11, 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 Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Diane Niesen 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, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Councilmember Niesen arrived at 6:05 p.m. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Carmody asked what the criteria would be for emergency vehicle pre_ emption systems with regards to Consent Item 7d, Resolution Authorizing Traffic Signal Agreement No. 87808R with Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. City Manager Michael McCauley advised that funding for pre emption systems has not been available; however, new signal projects contain components to facilitate pre emption if the City would be able to get systems in the future. She asked if the City will be responsible for the proper routine maintenance of the walkways. Mr. McCauley responded that the sidewalks along the roads will be the City's responsibility. Councilmember Lasman questioned if the City has the ability to activate the emergency vehicle pre emption systems. Mr. McCauley responded that the City does not have the ability to activate the systems. Councilmember Carmody asked for clarification regarding the action with Council Consideration Item 9a, Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Proposal for a Housing Finance Program and the Issuance of a Housing Revenue Note to Finance a Multifamily Housing Project Pursuant to Minnesota Law, and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing. Mr. McCauley discussed this action would retire existing bonds and provide for improvements for the multifamily housing development at 7256 Unity Avenue North. 04/11/05 1- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody expressed concern about the increase with the Administrative Land Use Permit for non profit events with regards to Council Consideration Item 9e, Resolution Amending the Schedule for Fees for Planning and Inspection Fees. Mr. McCauley discussed that the verification process for the Administrative Land Use Permits had increased with some applicants which created an increase for this fee. Councilmember Niesen arrived at 6:05 p.m. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she did not believe that she had abstained from Council Consideration Item 9j, Resolution Designating Additional Depositories of City Funds, at the March 28, 2005, meeting, and asked that the minutes be corrected. Mayor Kragness and Councilmember Carmody discussed that they recalled that was the action by Councilmember O'Connor. Councilmember O'Connor asked that the tape be reviewed for clarification. Councilmember Niesen questioned the conduit bonds with regards to Council Consideration Item 9a, Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Proposal for a Housing Finance Program and the Issuance of a Housing Revenue Note to Finance a Multifamily Housing Project Pursuant to Minnesota Law, and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing. Mr. McCauley discussed that the conduit bonds would not be obligations of the City. Council discussed the proposed minute amendments by Councilmember Niesen for the March 28, 2005, Regular Session. There was consensus to amend the March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes as follows: Page 2 and 3, starting on the fifth paragraph of Council Reports: Councilmember Niesen informed that she met with the City Manager on Wednesday, March 23, 2005, to discuss issues as outlined on the Agenda she sent prior to the meeting. The main discussion was on how the Council could go forward and connect better with the Planning Commission and comply with the laws as they were intended and not find difficult situations where the Council has to argue amongst themselves with deadlines and trying to meet legal requirements of the law. She discussed that she had asked Mr. McCauley where the legal publications would be published in the Sun Post Newspaper. Mr. McCauley discussed that the official notices of hearings are in the legal publications which are generally in the back of the Sun Post Newspaper. Councilmember Niesen thanked the City Manager for copying all Councilmembers (Mayor) on the Discussion Agenda she had emailed prior to their 3 -23 -05 meeting, and noted her expectation that since this meeting was communicated to all, that similar process be followed for all Members (Mayor). Councilmember Niesen asked the City Manager if he did so inform all Councilmembers (Mayor) of the agenda he has had with Councilmembers. The City Manager responded that this was the first time he had received an Agenda. 04/11/05 -2- DRAFT DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS REQUEST FROM BROOKLYN PARK FOR RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR HIGHWAY 252 CORRIDOR STUDY Council discussed the request received from the City of Brooklyn Park regarding support for a Highway 252 corridor traffic study. Mayor Kragness expressed she did not recall that the Brooklyn Center City Council ever took part in any previous studies for this and questioned why the City of Brooklyn Center was listed in a resolution solution ado ted b the City of Brooklyn Park. Public Works P Y Y Yn Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom discussed he was surprised to see that in the adopted resolution and informed that this was the first he was aware of this issue. Mr. McCauley informed that a letter could be sent indicating the City of Brooklyn Center is not supportive of this traffic study. It was the consensus of the Council to have a letter sent indicating that the City of Brooklyn Center is not supportive of this study. BUDGET DISCUSSIONS Councilmember O'Connor cited sections of the 2005 Annual Budget and asked for clarification regarding why the Enterprise Fund was bigger than the Public Safety Fund. Mr. McCauley outlined that the Enterprise Funds were the Earle Brown Heritage Center, the Liquor Fund, and the Golf Course. Councilmember O'Connor indicated that her review of the budget indicates that income for the Community Activities, Recreation and Services (CARS) Budget was less than the cost of the department. Mr. McCauley confirmed that the costs exceeded the revenues and that he would provide the analysis that is done for the budget regarding the revenues and expenses for the Community Center and recreation. Councilmember O'Connor asked about the administrative services transfer and where those funds came from. Mr. McCauley advised that these were reimbursements of personnel costs to the General Fund from the Utilities and Enterprise Funds. Councilmember O'Connor inquired what was contained in Non Departmental Expenditures in the General Fund Budget. Mr. McCauley indicated these would be things such as insurance and that he would provide a summary of all of the components aggregated as Non Departmental Expenditures in the 2005 Budget Summary on page 36 of the Budget book. 04/11/05 -3- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked about the budgeted $96,300 loss in Capital Projects for 2005. Mr. McCauley stated that in some years Capital Projects exceed revenues and in other years they do not. 2005 projects a use of fund balance. Councilmember O'Connor asked about the Special Revenue Funds and the surplus in Special Revenue Funds. Mr. McCauley indicated that tax increment was the major component of that group. The monies received for tax increment are restricted to legally permissible uses. Councilmember O'Connor expressed concern with the Liquor Store and Earle Brown Heritage Center (EBHC) losses. She questioned what staff plans on doing with these funds. Mr. McCauley discussed that the EBHC has met its cash flow goal as outlined in the Council Policy and that the preliminary numbers for 2004 was after deprecation and capital projects. The final 2004 numbers will be finalized in May. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RE -OPEN STUDY SESSION A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to re -open the Study Session. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the lease amount for the second liquor store and if the lease would be able to be broken. Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey responded that he would get the exact lease amounts. Councilmember Lasman discussed that when the City went into the business of a second liquor store, it was the expectation that it would take time. Councilmember O'Connor questioned how long the Council would wait until thinking about breaking the lease. Councilmember Carmody expressed she believed that more then one year was needed Mr. Boganey responded to the previous question as to what the cost of the lease was for the second liquor store; $7,600 a month or $93,000 a year. 04/11/05 4- DRAFT ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the Study Session at 6:57 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 04/11/05 -5- 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 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 11, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Council met in Informal Open Forum at 6:45 p.m. 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, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. No one wished to address the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:53 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION A moment of silence was observed. 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, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 04/11/05 -1- DRAFT 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor reported that she attended the Housing Commission meeting and the League of Minnesota Cities Conference regarding Legislative issues. Councilmember Lasman reminded that the Police /Citizen Awards Ceremony would be on April 20, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in Constitution Hall; and informed that the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast would be held on May 7, 2005, at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the League of Minnesota Cities Conference and the Northwest Hennepin Regional Human Rights Coalition Sixth Annual Art Contest. Councilmember Niesen reminded that the first of three public meetings regarding the Opportunity Site would be held on April 13, 2005; and informed that the other meeting dates would be June 15, and May 11, 2005. Mayor Kragness discussed this would be the first opportunity for citizens to ask or make comments regarding the Opportunity Site and informed that the Council will hear the outcome of the public meetings in September. Mayor Kragness reported that she attended the Brooklyn Center Lion's Club 50` Anniversary Event and provided them with a Mayor's Proclamation. 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. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the agenda could be approved with an amendment to have the March 28, 2005, Regular Session video tape reviewed for clarification to see if she had abstained from an item on that agenda. Councilmember Carmody said that the Deputy City Clerk had watched the tape and that she also remembers her abstaining on that agenda item. Councilmember O'Connor asked that the March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes be tabled until the April 25, 2005, meeting. Mayor Kragness said that if she did not want to take the word of two Council Members and the Deputy City Clerk, then the Council could'table the minutes. An amended motion by Councilmember Lasman was made to amend the agenda to table the March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes, seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 04/11/05 -2- DRAFT 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the March 28, 2005, Study Session minutes. Motion passed unanimously. (The March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes were tabled to April 25, 2005.) 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL Aspen Air Inc. 308 SW 15` Street, Forest Lake Corporate Mechanical 5114 Hillsboro Avenue North, New Hope Hilliard Heating 13790 268 Avenue, Zimmerman Knight Heating Air 13535 89` Street NE, Otsego MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Metro Mitsubishi 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard Iten Chevrolet Company 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard Luther Brookdale Chrysler Jeep Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard Luther Brookdale Chrysler Jeep Dodge 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL Renewal: 130072 "d Avenue North Marinela and Scott Selseth 3824 Burquest Lane Bradley Fritz 5715 Knox Avenue North Xiong Por Yang Initial: 6712 Beard Avenue North Morris Matthews 7013 Fremont Avenue North Mai Thao 6137 Lee Avenue North Benn Dossman IV 5207 East Twin Lake Blvd. David Ulhorn SIGN HANGER G J Awning Canvas Inc. 1260 10 Street North, Sauk Rapids Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -09, LIFT STATION NOS. 7 AND 10 CONTROL CABINET REPLACEMENT AND WATER SYSTEM SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS 04/11/05 -3 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-60 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -09, LIFT STATION NOS. 7 AND 10 CONTROL CABINET REPLACEMENT AND WATER SYSTEM SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 87808R WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -61 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 87808R WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STORM SEWER CLEANING AND REPAIRS ALONG SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 2005-62 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STORM SEWER CLEANING AND REPAIRS ALONG SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 04/11/05 -4- DRAFT 7.5 PRESENTATION AUDREY HARRIS NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL, REGARDING ANNUAL ART CONTEST Audrey Harris, representing the Northwest Hennepin Regional Human Rights Coalition Art Contest, addressed the Council to discuss the Sixth Annual Art Contest. The art contest was designed to be a way to introduce sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students to universal human rights issues by using artistic expression. The item for this year's contest was "Universal Human Rights Are for Everyone She informed that the top winners could be found on the Minnesota Department of Human Rights Website and announced the following top three winners for this year's contest are: First Place Libby Norris, 7 Grade, St. Alphonsus Catholic School Second Place Kaitlyn Auer, 6` Grade, Rice Lake Elementary Third Place Robyn Wolfish, 8` Grade, Plymouth Middle School She discussed that the City of Brooklyn Center had supported this contest for the past six years by providing donations and overall support and participating in the Regional Human Rights Coalition efforts. Mayor Kragness thanked Ms. Harris for attending and providing some of the art work for display. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 8a. 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): CVS STORE City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that this would be the public hearing for the previously approved matter with respect to the zoning application for the site plan and preliminary plat. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. g P Y ORDINANCE NO. 2005 -03 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: 04/11/05 -5- DRAFT 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): CVS STORE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification regarding the ordinance adoption. Mr. McCauley discussed that from an effective standpoint the application was approved and the 60 days had expired since the applicant requested the approval of their application, which included the zoning action and is in effect approved. Councilmember Niesen expressed that there would be no need to vote on this since voting yes or no would have no effect. Mr. McCauley discussed that voting yes or no would have no impact on whether or not CVS could go forward. If the vote passes with the extraordinary majority, then the records would indicate that as opposed to indicating that it did not receive the extraordinary majority but is deemed approved by virtue of Minnesota Statutes 15.99. Councilmembers O'Connor and Niesen voted against the same. The ordinance having been voted upon more than 60 days after the land use application, the ordinance is deemed approved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99. Motion passed. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF A HOUSING REVENUE NOTE TO FINANCE A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA LAW, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING Mr. McCauley discussed this resolution would set May 9, 2005, for a public hearing to refund bonds that are currently outstanding on a 112 unit multifamily housing development and to finance renovations to the facility itself. This is a type of process that does not involve the full faith and credit of the City or make the City responsible for the bonds, but provides a reduced interest rate for this type of housing and service that it is providing to go forward using those lower rates. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -63 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF A HOUSING REVENUE NOTE TO FINANCE A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA LAW, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING 04/11/05 -6- DRAFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS YOUTH GOLF TOURNAMENT Mayor Kragness discussed this resolution expresses appreciation for the donation of $300 to be used to support the Earle Brown Days Youth Golf Tournament. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-64 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS YOUTH GOLF TOURNAMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. STAFF REPORT REGARDING EARTH DAY AND GREAT SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED CLEANUP PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 22, 2005, EARTH DAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 16-23,2005, TO BE THE GREAT SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED CLEANUP WEEK Mr. McCauley informed that Graydon Boeck, Watershed Commissioner, was present and if the Council had questions regarding Council Consideration Item 9i, Request of Watershed Commissions for Comment on Proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy, the Council may wish to address that issue with Mr. Boeck at this time as well. Mr. Boeck addressed the Council and read the Proclamation Declaring the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup the week of April 16 -23, 2005. A motion by Councilmember Lasman to adopt the Proclamation Declaring April 16 -23, 2005, to be Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week. Councilmember O'Connor asked what is being done to protect and preserve the water resources. Councilmember Carmody discussed that the draft letter the Council would be discussing later on the agenda would be one example of trying to do some capital improvement projects that will facilitate making Shingle Creek cleaner. 04/11/05 -7- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked what the City could do to help preserve the waters and if the amount of salt on roadways could be reduced. Mr. Boeck discussed that the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and the P artici p g atin cities that are members of the Commission contribute money to maintain a program whereby the Commission will review all development within the watershed to see that it is in accordance with established rules and regulations and that the Commission continues to perform studies regarding the deformation and the contamination of the streams. Councilmember O'Connor asked what is being done when there is contamination in the streams. Mr. Boeck responded that they are attempting to clean them up to the extent that monies are available. The Commission continually requests and is granted various grants and monies from the State and Federal Governments where they can have projects and programs to provide for facilities that will prevent pollution of various water streams and lakes. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City of Brooklyn Center could do more. Mr. Boeck discussed that the City of Brooklyn Center has an extensive program whereby they have contributed money and a portion of the funding to cleanup the lakes within the City limits. Councilmember Carmody seconded the Proclamation and discussed information regarding the kickoff event that will take place on April 23, 2005. Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2005, Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember O'Connor asked what programs and projects the City has to enhance the community's natural environment. Councilmember Carmody discussed that every time the City does a street improvement project or develops a project of a certain size, there is usually storm drainage added or the storm sewer system is updated. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2005, Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember O'Connor moved that an amendment to the motion adding to number two on the Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2005, Earth Day in Brooklyn Center, indicate that programs being undertaken would reduce the amount of salt that is put on the streets to reduce the amount of chloride that goes into the steams. She also moved that instead of putting insecticides and pesticides on the City's golf course that it be protected as the golf course has Shingle Creek going through it. Councilmember Niesen seconded the motion. Councilmember Carmody expressed she would not vote in favor of the amendment because there is a lot more that needs to be discussed specifically about salt. There is an issue of safety and she believes this would be a separate issue from just declaring Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. She informed that 1' she would like to discuss those concerns raised during street improvement project or g P p J during a work session so more information could be provided to the Council. 04/11/05 -8- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would support the discussions and believes this should cause an item on a future work session agenda. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Niesen and O'Connor. Voting against: Mayor Kra ness and g g Y g Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman. Motion failed. On the motions to adopt both proclamations, both proclamations passed unanimously. Mr. Boeck expressed that he appreciates the concern about the salt and discussed that balancing the salt against the health and welfare of the community is a difficult matter. He believes what the Commission is trying a State located i t ry g to do is urge all of the cities, counties, and th S Highway a d n he watershed to be aware and collaborate with the Commission as far as fundin g is concerned; and collaborate with the Commission to somehow secure an alterative to salt for deicing the roadways. Councilmember O'Connor asked if there is too much chloride in Shingle Creek and what would be done to get rid of it. Mr. Boeck discussed that they are trying from their total maximum daily load studies; however, the salt and chlorides within the streams and rivers are causing the present condition to be above the tolerable situation. The Commission is trying hard to get agencies to reduce the amount of salt that is being used. Councilmember Carmody asked Mr. Boeck if the Capital Improvement Plan is suggested for five years and what he thought about having an end date on the improvements. She discussed that one of the factors of concern was that a tax would be added and then never removed. Mr. Boeck responded that he believes that would be something advisable and that visiting all of the various improvements would be wise. Councilmember Niesen asked if the Commission had a lot of ongoing discussions about the funding and who represented the financial discussions. Mr. Boeck discussed that they are limited and the source of funds are two separate sources. One being an assessment against the benefited city or the cities within the project. The other is funds from the County, State, Metropolitan Council, EPA, and any other source. He discussed that what it comes down to is asking if the City Council where a project is being constructed or developed r fund that project directly p g de oped is going to pay o p o� y or ask the County to provide the vehicle for funding through a tax. 9d. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO FINANCIAL COMMISSION Mayor Kragness requested ratification of appointing Samuel Tweah to the Financial Commission with term expiring December 31, 2005. She informed that she had spoken to the other two applicants and explained to them that with Mr. Tweah's background in finances and the need to get diversity on some of the Commissions would be her reasons for her appointment. 04/11/05 -9- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to ratify Mayoral nomination of Samuel Tweah to the Financial Commission with term expiring December 31, 2005. Councilmember O'Connor discussed that Mr. Remiarz was from a district that had no representatives, applied a year ago, and seems to have knowledge of financing. Mayor Kragness responded there are other districts that have more than one representative and that Mr. Remiarz's knowledge of financing is in doing taxes. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to discuss the P rocess that is to be followed for applicants since she believes the Council has a commitment to the neighborhoods. She wished to echo the comments that were made by Councilmember O'Connor and discuss the background of Mr. Remiarz who had applied several times. She expressed that she believes he has a passion and interest in City finances and that people who come and speak out are the most active people the City has even if they disagree or take on challenges in the City. She is concerned with the process that was followed for Mr. Tweah since he had received an application without even requesting one. Mayor Kragness discussed that she often invites people to apply for commissions because she feels a lot of people are shy about applying for commissions and when it comes to something like the Financial Commission it would be nice to have someone with a background in finances, not someone who just does taxes. She further discussed that as Mayor she is to appoint the appropriate persons to fill vacancies on commissions. Councilmember Niesen expressed that to be fair and equitable to all residents the application process should be followed and that she would rather see Mr. Remiarz appointed because he was representing an area that is not being represented and has been genially interested. Mayor Kragness informed Councilmember Niesen that if she wished to vote against ratification of Mr. Tweah she can do so and that at this time she is not considering Mr. Remiarz. Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman voted in favor. Councilmembers O'Connor and Niesen voted against the same. Motion passed. 9e. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR FEES FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES Mr. McCauley discussed that a number of permit fees had not been adjusted since 1999 or even longer. The fee increases from an annualized adjusted basis are rather modest. One of the issues that the Council raised in the Study Session was that the proposal would impact non profit, charitable, and civic groups who were applying for administrative land use permits. They are currently charged $25 and the proposed fee schedule will be $50. There was some discussion or question as to whether or not that would have an impact on those non profit uses. Councilmember Carmody asked if there would be any middle ground for those who obey the law and only need the permit for events they have every year. 04/11/05 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Lasman asked if under the circumstances that Councilmember Carmody described, where they do have be to sought out, if that would be an appropriate charge for that situation. Mr. McCauley suggested that the Council may wish to delete the language in Section 10. Administrative Land Use Permit Fees, a. b. and f., in the proposed resolution. Then staff could discuss the issues that were raised and come back with a report on those three sections. Councilmember Carmody informed that would be fine with her. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-65 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the deletion of Section 10, Administrative Land Use Permit Fees, a. b. and f.: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR FEES FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember Niesen inquired about electrical inspection fees. Mr. McCauley discussed that electrical inspection fees would be under the electrical code. Councilmember Niesen asked how raising the fees are approached. Mr. McCauley responded that the Community Development Department reviewed their fees which had not been reviewed for a number of years and recently participated in a number of surveys that have looked at fees throughout the Metropolitan Area. Based on their judgment they recommended updating the fees at these levels. She asked what the next cycle or plan would be for increasing fees in the future. Mr. McCauley discussed when the next iteration of the International Building Code is adopted, which he believes is next year; it will probably trigger another review. Motion passed unanimously. 9L AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT Mr. McCauley discussed that the C 1 A Service /Office District is a smaller subset of the commercial zoning area that has no height limitations and is generally in the area between the freeway and Bass Lake Road. This ordinance amendment would permit transient lodging which is basically hotels /motels as a permitted use. The City for sometime has seen that as not only a good idea, but actually one that staff has sought to actively pursue to enhance the Earle Brown Heritage Center and those types of developments. 04/11/05 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen asked if this ordinance amendment was related to the legal suit that had been filed. Mr. McCauley discussed this was in the works before that legal suit was initiated and staff was looking at it as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept. It appears in the Planning Commission's review that it recommends it should be an outright permitted use. With respect to the litigation, one of the many things involved would be made mute by this in the same fashion it would be mute by a PUD to do the same thing. Councilmember Niesen asked if part of it is alleging that this is against the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCauley responded that it is unaware if it includes that. It has a number of misstatements, one of which is that the City does not allow buildings over four stories, which is the C 1 District, but the Cl A has no limits. Councilmember Niesen asked what else would be considered transient housing under this amendment. Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren discussed that this would also include transient lodging and associated uses that would be accessory to, or incidental to a hotel. In this case, one of the driving factors for this ordinance amendment was the proposal for the hotel water park on the vacant land which the Council had entered into a development agreement for. Mr. Warren outlined further the details of what could be considered as a hotel or motel including accessory uses such as restaurants, bar, nightclub, or in this current case, the possibility of water park. Councilmember Niesen questioned why this is not moving forward with a PUD. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes this would be a cleaner way and makes sense since it is a limited area. Mr. Warren added that a PUD may still come forward but it would be a CIA underlying zone. Councilmember Niesen asked if something is zoned C 1 according to the City's ordinance and meets all the requirements, doesn't it have to be approved. Mr. Warren discussed there are a couple factors under zoning. A permitted use has no ability for disapproval if all requirements are met. With a special use certain conditions and standards have to be met and proven by the applicant before the Council can grant a special use permit. Looking at the physical characteristics of what is allowed in a zone or the buffer requirements, there are special requirements that are listed and it is stated that there is certain buffer requirements between zones. Mr. Warren further explained examples of PUDs and special use permits. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve first reading and set second reading and public hearing on May 9, 2005. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she is concerned about the lawsuit that has been filed against the City and does not believe this would be a wise thing for the Council to approve. Councilmember O'Connor questioned why the Council would have approved this hotel planning if the property was not zoned properly. Councilmember Carmody discussed that the hotel was going to be done as a PUD and the Council did not change the zoning at that time since things do happen along the development process. 04/11/05 -12- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9g• STAFF REPORT FOR FREMONT AVENUE AND LILAC DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-08 Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom outlined the three options for modifying Fremont Avenue near Lilac Drive which are as follows: Option 1 Terminate 62 Avenue North $70,500 Option 2 3 -Way Intersection with Stop Condition $59,900 Option 3 Private Driveway Connection $97,700 Mayor Kragness questioned if there was room behind the facility to run a road in that location. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it would be tight and impacts the green space making Option 3 a big drawback. Mr. Blomstrom informed that there is a big unknown with Option 1 because it would require some land acquisition from the adjacent property owner to form a cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac that is proposed in the preliminary drawings was the minimum radius that would be needed to turn a snowplow around and to build that there was not enough existing right -of -way at this time to construct a cul -de -sac. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that if the Council wishes to further pursue any of these improvements the financial agreements need to be pinned down between the City and Lang Nelson as to how the costs would be split. After a decision is tentative) made he would recommend commend that staff y s of conduct a public meeting with the neighborhood since there is some potential issues or concerns throughout the neighborhood. After the neighborhood meeting staff could summarize the comments received and present them to the Council at which time the Council could approve or disapprove pursuing a public improvement project in that area. Mayor Kragness questioned if there would be a signage problem with Option 2. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it is a difficult intersection and there are some traffic issues with Option 2. Councilmember Carmody questioned what would happen after the curb and gutter is removed with Options 1 and 2. Mr. Blomstrom discussed P ssed that rt is currently public right-of-way and he would recommend that the City hold that as public right -of -way for the time being. She inquired if there had been any discussions with the property owners. Mr. Blomstrom responded that there had not been any discussions with property owners. Mr. McCauley added that the question of cost would be one asked by property owners and that is why a meeting had not taken place yet. 04111105 -13- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody q uestioned if when the Council had discussed this before if the financing option would have been a 50150 percent split. Mayor Kragness responded that she believes it was going to be determined on the timing of project. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the consideration of the ro'ect started in February 2004 and it became too late to do the construction last year. The p J rY Council requested that staff prepare a study over the winter to avoid consultant fees and make a report this year. Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding the financing. Mr. Blomstrom indicated the financing would need to be established by the Council and that staff is not recommending special assessments on this project. Mr. McCauley added that part of the reason special assessments are not being onsidered is that the staff does not see this realignment as providing a benefit to those homes g g p g in the area. Frank Lang, CEO and President of Lang Nelson, addressed the Council to express that life safety and the health of seniors are the concerns to be addressed not only by his residents but other residents in the area. Councilmember Lasman asked if traffic counts had been done to see what kind of an implication the acute angle intersection would have on the safety. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that there had been no traffic counts along 62 Avenue North. He believes that most of the traffic coming to or from the north building are going north on Lilac Drive until they get to Dupont Avenue and then traveling north/south on Dupont Avenue. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she thinks more of other types of traffic especially in a neighborhood like this and believes that the City needs to have intersections. She questioned why reconnection of Lilac Drive and making more of a green space to the east of the cul -de -sac and cutting off the Fremont Avenue was not considered. Mr. Blomstrom discussed they had studied a lot of options and that was one that was looked at; however, the edge of the right -of -way would extend through an existing parking lot and expands outside of the public right -of -way. Another issue with this option would be creating an acute intersection further down the road. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she believes Options 1 and 2 should be considered for the meeting with the property owners and let residents look at those options in order to get a more formal structure; however, she is leaning more towards Option 2. Mr. McCauley discussed there are two parts with Options 1 and 2. Option 1 is far more volatile and the cost range is not clearly delineated. The $70,500 represents an anticipated cost of construction and deconstruction. If the City were to acquire property from the homeowner on 62 Avenue North, the cost is unknown. Option 2, while it certainly has volatility, is far less volatile than Option 1. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she does think it is important to show the neighborhood some options to broaden the scope of discussions even though she does not believe that Option 1 would be favorable. 04/11/05 -14- DRAFT Mayor Kragness questioned if there had been any recent discussions regarding the cost sharing with Lang Nelson. Mr. Blomstrom informed that there had been no recent discussions. Mr. Lang questioned how Option 2 went from approximately $30,000 to $59,800. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the costs were estimated without the benefit of a field study and that was the reason they suggested before getting into a deep discussion of financing and making decisions conducting a feasibility study. There were a couple of things that had come up and one was one of the streets not being able to be salvaged and would need to be widened to the minimum street width for a two -way public street which added to the cost. Another issue was the removal of a utility pole, which was brought up as an unknown during the initial discussions. The utility pole will need to be removed and there is a substantial cost. The other issues are pavement markings, stop signs, and things that are proposed to mitigate for some of the traffic issues with the acute angle intersection. Councilmember Niesen asked Mr. Lang why he had expanded the parking lot at the senior housing complex. Mr. Lang discussed that they had placed an 8,000 square foot addition onto the building and expanded the parking lot in order to accommodate that addition since they were not able to provide underground parking. Councilmember Lasman expressed she favors Option 2 and believes that the project should be something both the City and Mr. Lang work together on for financing. Mr. Lang informed that Option 2 is the only viable position for them to be in and that he thinks Option 2 is a good one to be supported from both the residents' standpoint and neighborhood standpoint. In terms of economics and with the substantial difference in cost, he is blown away by the doubling of the cost estimate. Mr. Lang discussed the senior housing economics and informed that at the time discussions started he was willing to pay approximately $15,000, which was half, and that is what he is willing to pay today. Mayor Kragness expressed that the financial aspect is something that really needs to be considered and asked what year this project would be considered for improvements as part of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Mr. Blomstrom responded that it is beyond 2011 at this point and it is because a bit of the neighborhood already had curb and gutter and the streets are not as deteriorated as other streets. Councilmember Carmody discussed originally she was thinking that the project was going to be split 50150 percent. She asked how the Council would feel about a comprise and suggested a 60/40 percent split with the City being 60 percent and Lang Nelson being 40 percent since the residents at the complex are residents of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to know what the neighbors feel about the project before making any financial decisions. 04/11/05 -15- DRAFT Mayor Kragness informed that the last time the Council discussed this she received some calls from the neighbors and half of them were for the project and half of them not for the project. She thinks it is important that this road be constructed and if there could be some agreement on the financing of the project it would be beneficial to all. She asked Mr. Lang if he would be able to talk to his partners to see if they are able to come up with more than $15,000. Mr. Lang asked about the timeframe and plan; and Mayor Kragness asked what the plan would be to get this project completed this year. Mr. McCauley discussed an alternate was placed in the current bid documents for the street reconstruction project to seek the potential ability to do the work in 2005. If there is going to be a meaningful opportunity for the neighborhood, as well as have the ability to do it as an alternate should this go forward with the alternate, there needs to be something figured out in the next two weeks to start the process. Mr. Blomstrom added that the numbers provided are estimates and are subject to bids. He is hoping to be able to bid this project as part of this year's CIP to keep the costs as low as possible. Councilmember Carmody asked if the Council were to approve their part and Mr. Lang finds that they are able to fund their part, can the project move forward in the next two weeks. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council agrees and Mr. Lang notifies the City that they are able to fund their portion then staff would be able to begin scheduling the meeting to keep on track so that a decision could be made. Mayor Kragness expressed that she believes it is important to move this project forward this year. Mr. Lang indicated that he would let the Council know this week about their funding options. Councilmember Carmody made a motion to direct staff to work with Lang Nelson and come up with an agreement; develop a neighborhood meeting to present Options 1 and 2 to the residents; and use a 60/40 percent split, the City being 60 percent and Lang Nelson being 40 percent on the financing. Mr. McCauley discussed in order for this to align, Lang Nelson has to be in agreement with the Council and he believes that Lang Nelson is not considering Option 1, sous part of the neighborhood meeting discussions, Option 1 would only be to show the alternatives considered. Councilmember Lasman seconded the motion. Councilmember Niesen asked if there would be a ceiling limit. Mr. McCauley discussed at this time there are no firm dollar figures from both sides and will not be able to be considered until the bids are received. Motion passed unanimously. 9h. 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE Mr. McCauley recommended May 25, 2005, for a joint meeting with the Commission Chairs and amending the 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule to add May 25, 2005, 6:30 p.m., in the Council /Commission Conference Room. 04/11/05 -16- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to amend the 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule to add a joint meeting with the Commission Chairs on May 25, 2005, 6:30 p.m., in the Council /Commission Conference Room. Motion passed unanimously. 9i. REQUEST OF WATERSHED COMMISSIONS FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COST SHARING POLICY Mr. McCauley discussed the revised draft letter had been amended to incorporate the Council's comments received and asked if the first paragraph in the letter is acceptable. If so then each of the numbers one through ten could be addressed individually, unless the Council prefers the draft alternative that they do not support the proposal. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to comment on the first paragraph and let the Council know where she stands on this issue. While she is in support of undertaking projects, someone has to pay for water quality improvements. The City is part of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and taking care of the watershed as a whole. The people who benefit from clean water are all of those in the watershed. She does not support the idea of the City taking 75 percent on to their taxpayers. She is in support of an ad valorem tax levied on the entire watershed for capital improvements and identifying these improvements. She does not feel the proposed funding to support their capital projects is generally appropriate in concept because it identifies the possibility of benefiting properties that could be identified which she believes opens the door to saying that people who live on the lake, river, or Shingle Creek could be assessed and that it should all be shared. Councilmember Carmody asked Councilmember Niesen for clarification regarding funding. Councilmember Niesen asked City Attorney Charlie LeFevere to respond. Mr. LeFevere discussed that the watershed has two choices for funding projects. One is to send a bill to the County for ad valorem tax throughout the watershed, and the other is to send a bill to the cities under the JPA. Currently the formula under the JPA y is 50 P ercent on the basis of the tax valuation within the watershed for each city and 50 percent on the basis of the area. He discussed that the watershed commission is considering moving into a new phase and getting involved in capital projects which is something it has not done before. Because it was new they wanted to get a consensus of the cities as to how these projects were going to be funded. That effort has resulted in a new suggestion which is the one that is being proposed. If they do not reach consensus amon g the cities, the watershed commission does not have the authority to go with the percent split unless the cities agree. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she does not believe the 100 percent ad valorem tax is the way to go since of the nine communities involved, only two have elected representatives who are on the commission that would be deciding on a 100 percent ad valorem tax. She would support the concept of undertaking capital projects p g p p s that would benefit the watershed as a whole. 04/11/05 -17- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen expressed she does not think that the City's taxpayers can afford to take 75 percent of the costs. She further discussed that the bodies of water in the City should be supported under the JPA and asked for clarification on assessments under the State Law, under Watershed Law, 103D901, Subdivision 4, where it talks about assessments may not be levied against property or corporations benefited under this chapter in excess of the amount of benefit received as set by the order or managers authorizing the construction or implementation of the project. Mr. LeFevere responded that section applies only to watershed districts and does not apply to watershed commissions. Mr. McCauley discussed the process that would be used in a court action under the Law. Councilmember Lasman discussed the problem of the history of why nothing has been done because of the current funding system. Looking back at the frustration of not being able to do something about the water quality, the opportunity is coming before the cities with someone with a plan and willing to help. She informed that she has faith in the experts that put this information before the cities and understands the direction and logic of the workmanship to get something done. Councilmember Niesen discussed the issue for her is that she is supportive of capital projects; however, it is the funding that she is concerned about. She believes the funding needs to be fair and r all those involved. h supportive f kicking understood fo 1 o vo She would be su orti o pp g into the overall JPA to support funding capital projects with some constraints per capita and that it is also understood that the City would not single out a business or property owner and special assess them. If that was the action taking place she would be supportive of going forward and getting projects moving ahead. Councilmember Lasman reminded that she had suggested a ca and sunset be included for the draft gg P letter to the watershed commission. Mayor Kragness asked what will happen if the watershed commission gets negative responses from two or three of the cities and if the capital projects would go forward. Mr. McCauley responded that he has no idea what the watershed commission will do with the feedback. Councilmember Carmody informed that one of the meetings she attended discussed this and that the watershed commission was hoping to have 100 percent agreement because they felt that would be important. Councilmember Niesen asked what the City pays to the watershed commission now. Mr. McCauley responded that he believes approximately $48,000 and that the money comes from the storm water utility revenues. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would like things stricken out in the language that would be provided back to the watershed commission. She would support saying that Brooklyn Center would look at doing projects in conjunction with other cities that abut these properties and all of the cities that contribute to the watershed. 04/11/05 -18- DRAFT Mayor Kragness discussed that she believes everyone is agreeable that something needs to be done. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she does not believe something needs to be done and would vote that the Council take no action and take responsibility to keep Shingle Creek clean in the City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would be willing to attend a meeting to get more information and willing to tell the watershed commission that she supports coming up with a list of capital improvement projects and funding them to the formula with the 50/50 percent. Councilmember Carmody informed that she will be attending the meeting this week and asked what she should bring back for discussion. Mayor Kragness asked for a motion. Councilmember Niesen expressed she strongly disagrees with some things that are included in the materials and that all she would like to send is the funding formulas to the watershed commission for discussion. She expressed that she would be willing to go with Councilmember Carmody to the meeting this week and provide input without providing the draft letter. Councilmember Lasman discussed that the Council previously determined that if they had comments they would like incorporated to the draft letter they were to get those comments to the City Manager and he would incorporate to the draft letter. She informed that she had done so and asked Councilmember Niesen why she did not submit any comments for incorporation. Councilmember Niesen discussed that with the large amount of text provided she would strike a lot and that if the Council wants to go forward she would like to go forward on what is a fair thing for funding. She needs to know what the City is willing to do for funding and expressed that she would go as far to say that she does not agree that it is okay to base something on benefiting properties. Mayor Kragness informed that she believes the Council is not getting anywhere and asked for a motion or suggested tabling this issue. Councilmember Niesen moved to table this issue until a report could be provided to the watershed commission. She informed that she would attend the meeting to make a report and address her concerns. Councilmember Carmody suggested she attend and comment that the majority of the Council approves this in theory; however the Council would like to discuss it further since not all members are on board. She believes if the majority of the Council would like to .go forward, the watershed commission needs to know that. She is in favor and believes that if the City does not do this now, nothing will get done and tabling the issue is not going to address anything. 04/11/05 -19- DRAFT Further discussion took place regarding funding. Mr. McCauley added that the storm water utility would be the anticipated source of funding for the capital contribution that would be attributed to the City. With the bonds that are coming off and have come off, the amounts of money that had been described in the materials previously indicated would seem to be able to be absorbed at least in the next five years from the money that will be freed up because of the bonds being paid off. This should not result in an increase in storm water utility charges or ad valorem charges if the City were to use that for those purposes. Councilmember Niesen asked that be in writing for the residents so that if something happens she does not want there to be any mistake in judgment. She expressed another concern she has is how they factor the contribution. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that right now they are looking at contributing watershed and that could be based on area, percentage of the drainage area that the city occupies, flow, etc. Those are the types of comments that the watershed commission is looking for feedback from the cities. Councilmember Niesen restated her motion to table the issue to the next meeting because of her desire to take time out of her schedule and attend the meeting on Thursday for her questions and to hear what else everyone has to say. Councilmember O'Connor seconded the motion. Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman voted against the same. Motion failed. Councilmember Carmody moved a motion that she attend the Commission meeting to express that a majority of the Council is in favor of looking at this funding mechanism; however, the Council has concerns and two Council Members are not in favor. Councilmember Lasman added the suggestion that Councilmember Niesen could go to the meeting with her concerns so that they are discussed. Councilmember Lasman seconded the motion. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification on the motion. Councilmember Carmody said that her motion is that she or whomever would go to the Commission and convey to them that a majority of the Council is in favor of going forward with a funding type similar to this; however, there are questions and concerns and have two Council Members at this point in time that are not in favor. Councilmember Niesen questioned the draft letter that had been prepared. Councilmember Lasman asked if an amendment could be made to include the ten comments prepared because she would like to have the comments she provided of providing a cap and sunset brought forward. Councilmember Carmody said that was fine. Councilmembers Niesen and O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:07 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 04/11/05 -20- DRAFT 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 APRIL 11, 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 10:20 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, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. REQUEST FROM BROOKLYN PARK FOR RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR HIGHWAY 252 CORRIDOR STUDY This item was discussed at the Study Session. BUDGET DISCUSSIONS This item was discussed at the Study Session. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTIFICATIONS /CABLE TELEVISION MESSAGING EQUIPMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Niesen discussed that she would support waiting until the City gets new equipment and that she would like to look further into the dynamics of the equipment. Councilmember /Commissioner Carmody suggested considering this issue during the budget discussions. 04/11/05 -1- DRAFT MISCELLANEOUS City Manager /Executive Director Michael McCauley informed that since the Segway issue was discussed by a resident of Brooklyn Center at Informal Open Forum, it had been determined that Brooklyn Boulevard would be the only road in Brooklyn Center that would be considered too fast for Segways. He suggested waiting to hear the Park and Recreation Commission's comments after their review. Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman asked when they would have an update on the Coyote Grill liquor purchasing matter. Mr. McCauley responded that the City is not in control of the investigation and that the State is handling the matter. Staff would advise the Council if the results of the State's investigation when it received that information. Councilmember /Commissioner Niesen asked if the watershed item would be back on the next agenda. Mr. McCauley asked the Council if they wanted this on a future agenda. Council consensus was to place this matter on the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Councilmember/ Commissioner Carmody to adjourn the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:31 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor/President 04/11/05 -2- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk DATE: April 20, 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 April 25, 2005, are as follows: MECHANICAL St. Cloud Refrigeration 604 Lincoln Avenue NE, St. Cloud RENTAL Renewal: 421362 nd Avenue North Xeng Yang 0 Calls for service 6824 Fremont Place David Oium 0 Calls for service 5818 Humboldt Avenue North Richard Olson 0 Calls for service 4519 Woodbine Lane Benson Vang 1 Drug call Initial: 3007 68 Avenue North Kao Vang 0 Calls for service SIGN HANGER Nordquist Sign Co., Inc. 312 West Lake Street, Minneapolis 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 City g Council Agenda Item No. 7c Office of the City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 0 A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: April 20, 2005 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Approval of the Issuance of a Premises Permit for American Legion Post 630 to Conduct Lawful Gambling at 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center The American Legion Post 630 has submitted a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premises Permit Renewal Application to conduct lawful gambling at 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center. A background investigation has been conducted by the Brooklyn Center Police Department, and a memorandum from Lt. Scott Nadeau is attached, which indicates the investigation did not reveal any concerns in reference to lawful gambling at the establishment. As required in City Ordinance Section 23 -1902 (4), the American Legion Post 630 has provided the City of Brooklyn Center with monthly gambling financial reports. Minn. Stat. 349.313 Subd. 2. Local approval. Before issuing or renewing a premises permit or bingo hall license, the board must notify the city council of the statutory or home rule city in which the organization's premises or the bingo hall is located or, if the premises or hall is located outside a city, the county board of the county and the town board of the town where the premises or hall is located. The board may require organizations or bingo halls to notify the appropriate local government at the time of application. This required notification is sufficient to constitute the notice required by this subdivision. The board may not issue or renew a premises permit or bingo hall license unless the organization submits a resolution from the city council or county board approving the premises permit or bingo hall license. The resolution must have been adopted within 90 days of the date of application for the new or renewed permit or license. Attached is a resolution for City Council consideration to authorize approval of the issuance of a premises permit for American Legion Post 630 to conduct lawful gambling at 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard. 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 adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST 630 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING AT 6110 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the American Legion Post 630 has submitted a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premises Permit Renewal Application to conduct lawful gambling at 6110 r pP Brooklyn n Boulevard Brooklyn g g Y n Y Center, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Gambling Control Board requires a municipality to submit a resolution authorizing approval of the issuance of any lawful gambling premises permit within its borders; and WHEREAS, the American Legion Post 630 has submitted all appropriate and necessary documentation for the premises permit and a background investigation has been conducted by the Brooklyn Center Police Department regarding all named gambling managers and nothing was found in that investigation that would preclude the issuance of a Minnesota Lawful Gambling License; and WHEREAS, the American Legion Post 630 agrees to provide to the City of Brooklyn Center each month copies of the monthly reports they submit to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, that the issuance of a premises permit to the American Legion Post 630 to conduct lawful gambling at 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, is hereby approved. April 25, 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. 4 LIC BROOKLYN CENTER `'TY POLICE DEPARTMENT MN MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley FROM: Lt. Scott Nadeau DATE: 06 Apr 05 SUBJECT: American Legion Calls for Service On 4/5/05 I was tasked with investigating activity at the American Legion, located at 6110 Brooklyn Blvd., in order to establish whether or not there was any problematic or unlawful activity in regards to lawful gambling at the establishment. In researching calls for service at this address I found that since September 01, 2003 there have been a total of 23 total calls for service which include: 09 alarms; 05 medicals, including one person to detox; 01 robbery (reported at the establishment but not having occurred there); 01 domestic which was cleared by arrest; 01 motor vehicle theft, which was cleared by arrest; 01 Hit and Run property damage accident, which was cleared by arrest; 04 suspicious act calls; 01 traffic stop; I also contacted the State of Minnesota Alcohol and Gamblin g Enforcement division who told me that they have not received any complaints on this establishment nor do the have an active investigations. p i esti ations. Y Y g In summary, my investigation did not reveal any concerns in reference to lawful gambling at the establishment. Please feel free to contact me at (763) 503 -3204 with any questions you may have in reference to this memorandum. Cc: Chief Scott Bechthold Deputy Chief Laura Goodman Minnesota Lawful Gambling Board Use only bli Lng (LG200R) Lawful Gamblin License Renewal A lication o�� 9 PP Corrections should be made directly on this application Submit one check for all renewal fees made payable to State of Minnesota Organization requirements: i 1. An annual organization license fee of $350 is required. Organization license 233 Current license term 9/1/2003 to 8/31/2005 Check this box If your organization qualifies for the American Legion Post 630 waiver of the organization license 6110 Brooklyn Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Hennepin County fee defined In Minnesota Statute _349.16 Subd. 6 I (612)561 -3138 CEO: Perry Allen Ronei I Check the box I above If there I 1512 Amy Ln, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 is the CEO or n 1 (763)566 -4557 Treasurer listed. A LG200B must I be completed I Treasurer: David Lee Lewis for officer �unless 1 8420 115th Ln, Champlin, MN 55316 I It has already I been (763)421 -9007 1 I submitted. Premises permit requirements: 1. An annual premises permit fFee of $150, 2. A separate resolution of approval including the site address from the local unit of government, (The local unit of government does not sign this renewal application) and 3. A LG215 lease agreement for each site your organization does not own is required. Site number 004 Check this box if this site has been discontinued or will not be renewed. Board use only American Legion Post 630 6110 Brooklyn Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Hennepin County I I city jurisdiction, or county jurisdiction Site owned by organization Y Is bingo conducted by your organization? Y N If yes, the attached list of the days and beginning and ending hours of your bingo occasions must be updated and returned. Gambling account: 6659324 Bremer 5540 Brooklyn Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 City Council Agenda Item No. 7d Memorandum TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Speci st y SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Reduction DATE: April 19, 2005 The following site performance guarantee being held by the city for completion of various site improvements should be recommended to the City Council for reduction: Crossings at Brookwood (6201 Lilac Drive N) Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -009 Amount of Guarantee $20,000 (Cash Escrow) Obligor LaNel Crossings, LP All of the site improvements and conditions for which a performance guarantee was posted have been installed and completed for this 2003 -04 project. The project involved a 19,070 sq. ft., two story addition including eight new apartment units at 6201 Lilac Drive North. An as built survey has been submitted to the Engineering Department showing utility locations and other site improvements. The new landscaping was installed in 2004 and is required to survive the winter. It is recommended that the City Council authorize reduction of the $20,000 cash escrow to $5,000 to assure viability of the recently installed landscaping through the winter. months. It is anticipated that a final review of the landscape can be made in June of this year and subsequent recommendations will be made to the City Council at that time. City Council Agenda Item No. 7e City of o Brooklyn n Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 2005 TO: Michael I McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Designating 2005 Planting List of Allowable Boulevard Tree Species In 1990, City residents and Council members expressed strong support for an improved forestry program in the city. Staff was directed to develop a Community Forestry Work Plan and policies regarding public tree management. In February 1992 an ordinance adding Chapter 20 regarding g gP g �Y g p g g trees was adopted by the City Council. Section 20 -402 of the ordinance states that the City Council shall annually adopt a resolution designating allowable boulevard tree species. This section is included in the ordinance to emphasize the importance of maintaining a variety of species to reduce the impact of future tree disease and to assure that all boulevard trees be located so as to avoid creating future sight distance problems. Attached is a resolution designating the 2005 planting list of allowable boulevard tree species along with a copy of the boulevard permit that residents are required to complete and submit before the planting of boulevard trees. This list does not apply to tree selections for reforestation of Neighborhood Street and Utility Reconstruction Projects. Please note that the list of allowable boulevard tree species does not directly apply to the City's reforestation program. The reforestation program provides replacement trees within street reconstruction areas based on a separate list of tree species. For example, the reforestation tree list includes coniferous trees that must be planted outside of the street right -of -way, but the boulevard tree list does not include coniferous trees due to traffic sight line issues. 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 introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 2005 PLANTING LIST OF ALLOWABLE BOULEVARD TREE SPECIES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center promotes a diverse urban forest so as to minimize the spread of tree disease; and WHEREAS, section 20 -402 of the ordinances provides for an annual listing of allowable boulevard tree varieties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following trees are hereby designated as allowable boulevard tree species for 2005: Ash (Autumn Purple, Patmore, Linden (American) cultivars Summit Marshall) Linden (Littleleaf) cultivars Crabapple (Flowering) cultivars Linden Greenspire) cultivars Ginko Linden (Redmond) cultivars Hackberry Maple (Norway) cultivars Honeylocust (Imperial, Shademaster, Maple (Red) cultivars Skyline, Thornless) Maple (Sugar) cultivars Oak (Pin) Oak (White or Bur) 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. BEFORE' Jyartb d4 YOU PLANT, GI�Bt1L� 4t tfeti o e The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted an ordinance to establish policies for the care of boulevard trees. The ordinance contains very specific information regarding where boulevard trees maybe planted. Please read the following information before you plant a boulevard tree. A copy of the complete ordinance is available at City Hall. Section 20 -200. PUBLIC TREE CARE IN GENERAL Subdivision 3. Planting Boulevard Trees. No tree may be planted on the i boulevard except by permit obtained from the director of public services or designee. The City may move, remove, or trim or cause or order to be moved, removed, or trimmed any boulevard tree not planted by permit, or any boulevard tree which is not in compliance with this code. This section does not prohibit the planting of boulevard trees by adjacent property owners providing the selection, location, and care of said trees are in accordance with the provisions of this code. The purpose of a permit is to ensure that all requirements are met, most especially those relating to sight distance, both at corners and near driveways, sidewalks, alleys, etc. The following is the list of allowable boulevard trees for 2005: Ash (Autumn Purple, Patmore, Linden (American) cultivars Summit Marshall) Linden (Littleleaf) cultivars Crabapple (Flowering) cultivars Linden Greenspire) cultivars Ginko Linden (Redmond) cultivars Hackberry Maple (Norway) cultivars Honeylocust (Imperial, Shademaster, Maple (Red) cultivars Skyline, Thornless) Maple (Sugar) cultivars i Oak (Pin) Oak (White or Bur) City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Phone 763 569 -3495 PERMIT BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: PHONE: DAY OTHER VARIETY OF TREE: TO BE PLANTED (COMMON NAME) APPROXIMATE DATE OF PLANTING: Please stake or otherwise indicate your preferred tree location as soon as possible I have called or will call Gopher State One Call at 651 -454 -0002 to obtain underground utility locations Owner Signature Date ALLOW 48 HOURS FOR PROCESSING City use only: Initial and date each item checked Variety At least 5' from underground utilities Sight Distance At least 10' from overhead utilities Approx. width of Blvd. Proposed distance from edge of street Sidewalk? Proposed distance from edge of sidewalk ALL REQUIREMENTS MET: Signature Title Date City Council Agenda Item No. 7f City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Recognizing the Designation of Brooklyn Center as a Tree City USA for the Thirteenth Consecutive Year; And a Proclamation Declaring April 29, 2005 Arbor Day and May 2005 Arbor Month in Brooklyn Center For each of the past thirteen years, Brooklyn Center has strived for and achieved designation as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation. This national award recognizes communities with effective community forestry programs. The City's forestry programs include the following: Care for and planting of park and boulevard trees (108 trees were planted in 2004 and 350 trees were pruned); Diseased and nuisance tree removal program (356 Elm trees and 127 miscellaneous trees were marked for removal in 2004); Mandatory tree contractor registrations requiring certain minimums of liability insurance (currently 32 contractors are registered in Brooklyn Center); Boulevard tree planting permits requiring proper placement of trees and selection of tree species; A tree ordinance specifying proper standards of care for all trees; and An Arbor Day and Month program which travels between elementary schools in Brooklyn Center, providing teaching resources, learning activities, and an Arbor Day event to plant one or more trees. One of the requirements for Tree City USA cities is that they host Arbor Day or Arbor Month celebrations. The Earle Brown Elementary fourth grade students are scheduled to participate in morning activities for the 2005 Arbor Month celebration at Grandview Park in May. Council members will be notified when a specific date is established. A resolution recognizing Brooklyn Center's designation as a Tree City USA and reaffirming the City's commitment to its urban forest is provided for Council consideration. A proclamation declaring Arbor Day and Arbor Month in Brooklyn Center is also included for Council consideration. 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 introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE DESIGNATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER AS A TREE CITY USA FOR THE THIRTEENTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is committed to preserving and enhancing its urban forest; and WHEREAS, the National Arbor Day Foundation, upon the recommendation of the State of Minnesota forester, has designated Brooklyn Center as a Tree City USA in recognition of 2004 forestry activities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Council hereby recognizes and accepts the designation of Tree City USA for the thirteenth consecutive year on behalf of the residents of Brooklyn Center. 2. The Council reaffirms its commitment to urban forestry, and directs staff to, within the constraints of existing resources, continue its reforestation efforts. 3. The Council commends Brooklyn Center residents and staff for their work in maintaining and enhancing Brooklyn Center's urban forest. 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. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 29, 2005 ARBOR DAY AND MAY 2005 ARBOR MONTH IN BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Trees are an increasingly vital resource in Minnesota today, enriching our lives by purifying air and water, helping conserve soil and energy, creating jobs through a large forest products industry, serving as recreational settings, providing habitat for wildlife of all kinds, and making our cities more livable; and WHEREAS, Trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and WHEREAS, Human activities such as pollution, as well as drought, disease and insects threaten our trees, creating the need for concerted action to ensure the future of urban and rural forests in our state, country, and world; and WHEREAS, People can contribute to the environmental stewardship of our community by locally planting trees and ensuring that these trees are nurtured, protected, and wisely used in the years ahead; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center has been recognized for the thirteenth year as a Tree City USA by The National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue its tree management efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Council, do hereby proclaim April 29, 2005, Arbor Day and May 2005 as Arbor Month in the City Brooklyn Center, and I urge all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to support our city's community forestry program. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk City Council Agenda Item No. 7.5 Brooklyn Center MN New Quiet Zone on Canadian Pacific Railroad Azelia Avenue (DOT 696401X, MP 5.74) Action Items Define Quiet Zone limits (DONE) Install medians (DONE) Meet with Railroad (DONE) Update Inventory (DONE) Prepare 60 day notification letter (NEW) Update local ordinance Designate "Public Authority Official" Install signs Send in FRA notification (May 25, 2005) Begin Quiet Zone (Not before June 24, 2005) April 25, 2005 51. Whistle Bans at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings IRed Popular Title: Whistle Bans RIN 2130 -AA71 Stage: Final Rule Previous Stage: NPRM: Publication Date 01/13/2000; End of Continent Period 05/26/2000. Interim Final Rule: Publication Date 12/18/2003; End of Comment Period 02/17/2004; Extension of Comment Period 02/13/2004; End of Extended Comment Period 04 /19/2004. Abstract: This action would govern when train whistles at public grade crossings must be sounded. FRArhas found that failing to use the locomotive horn can significantly increase the number of collisions with motorists using the crossing. This action is considered significant because of substantial public interest. This action is being taken pursuant to statutory mandate. Pub. Law 103 -440 requires the Secretary to prohibit local whistle bans, except where there is no significant risk of loss of life or serious personal injury, supplementary safety measures fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the horn, or where use of the °locomotive horn is impractical. Effects: Regulatory Flexibility Act EIS Prompting action: Statute Legal Deadline: Final Rule: 11/02/1996 In 2000,Congress passed legislation prohibiting final rule publication before 07/01/2001 Rulemaking Project Initiated: 11/02/1994 Dates for Final Rule: Milestone Originally New Actual Scheduled Projected Date Date Date To OST 07/28/2004 09/30/2004 10/04/2004 To OMB 08/28/2004 11/29/2004 11/16/2004 Withdrawn from OMB 02/23/2005 Resubmitte to OMB 04/22/2005 03/17/2005 OM Clearance 10/25/200 05/06/2005 ;Publication Date 10/28/2004 05/18/2005 Explanation for any delay: Awaiting development of additional data *Publication date will be April 27, 2005 with effective date of June 24, 2005. Chart 2 Creating a New Quiet Zone using SSMs Obtain QZ must be at Install gates and cooperation from least 1/2 mile lights at all public all affected long crossings jurisdictions Pvt industrial, diagnostic team's Conduct xings with public, Comply with trial, or Yes diagnostic team review of pvt d commercial access recommendations included? zings no Update Nation', Inventory to reflect existing conditions Ws established on this within 6 months basis subject to annual rior to notificati on review 7homsta Parties, silence i QZRI NSRT? yes~ nd ins tall signag all crossinas no Disclaimer: This summary of the interim final rule is for informational purposes only. no Instal SSMs Entities subject to the interim final rule should refer to the rule text as published in the l Federal Register on December 18, 2003. Should any portion of this summary conflict with the interim final rule, the language of the interim final rule shall govern. yes SMs at eve �.w riotity Parties, silence i Update National ,1 oms, and install signage f public zing? s Inventory at all crossinas a no ti b wtity Parties, silence QZRI <RIWH? yes aro+ Update National J oms, and install signage at all crossinas Invento no a QZRI <NSRT? Yesc� a QZs established on this 0 basis subject to annual review ASM use requires FRA approval FRA Uulet Gone Calculator rage 1 or z Print This Page Home I Help I Contact I logoff dmckenzie @sehinc.com Update and Verify Crossing Information r_ CC1NTINUe Create New Zone Zone: BROOKLYNCENTERI 696401X AZELIA AVE NO Manage Existing Zones Pre -Rule Quiet Zone? No Crossing Updated! Log Off 696401X AZELIA AVE NO Present warn device: Gates Gates Number of highway Step by Step Instructions: vehicles per day: 002100 12100 Number of trains per day: 24 124 1 Step 1: To add more Number of trains per day crossings to the zone Click during daylight 12 112 the ADD CROSSING. Number of main tracks: 1 11 Step 2: To Make changes to Yes the information, select Highways paved: Yes Crossing from list. Make Maximum timetable speed changes, then click the mph: 20 120 UPDATE button. Number of highway lanes: 2 1 2 Step 8: To permanently remove a crossing from the Number of years accident data:5 12 zone, select Crossing from list. Click the DELETE Number of accidents in I CROSSING button. accident data years: 0 1 Step 4: Verify All Crossing Information Provided is UPDATE correct. Then Click the Check Note: Updating Crossing information on the Quiet Zone Box, then CONTINUE Calculator DOES NOT update the crossing inventory. Be button sure that an updated inventory form is also submitted. Not Public At Grade Crossing To verify ALL CROSSING INFORMATION PROVIDED is correct, click on the check box here. ADD CROSSING DELETE CROSSING tnttr /oofatx,AQto fro 9/16/2004 rKA Quiet Gone Calculator Page 1 or i Print This Page Home Help Contact I logoff dmckenzie @sehinc.com Cancel Change Scenario: I BROOKLYNCE_4150 Continue Create New Zone Crossing Street ITrafficlWarning Device ISSMIRisk I Manage Existing Zones �696401XAZELIA AVE NO I 210 jGates 0 114,601.20 ODIFY I Log Off Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. III Click here: for Suonlementary Safetv Measures Summary Step by Step Instructions: fSSMI. Proposed Quiet Zone: BROOKLYNCENTERI Type: New Quiet zone Step 1: To specify New Warning Scenario: BROOKLYNCE_4150 Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and /or SSM, click the Estimated Total Cost: 1$0.00 MODIFY Button Nationwide Significant 16988.00 Risk Threshold: Step 2: Select proposed warning device and SSM. Then click the Risk Index with Horns: 18753.72 UPDATE button. Quiet Zone Risk Index: 114601.2 Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the Select SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button httn /cafatvrlata frn rint anv /nniPt /cyan aenx ?7nnP.irl_441 9 8/16 /2004 NKA Quiet Gone Calculator rage 1 of 1 Print This Page Home Help Contact I logoff dmckenzie @sehinc.com Cancel Change Scenario: BROOKLYNCE_4150 Continue Create New Zone Crossing IStreet iTrafficlwarning Device ISSMIRisk 1 I Manage Existing Zones 696401X AZELIA AVE NO 2100 jGates 9 12,920.24 MODIFY I Log Off Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. Click here: for Suonlementary Safetv Measures Summary Step by Step Instructions: JSSM1. Proposed Quiet Zone: BROOKLYNCENTER1 Type: New Quiet Zone Step 1: To specify New Warning Scenario: BROOKLYNCE_4150 Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and /or SSM, click the Estimated Total Cost: 1$15,000.00 MODIFY Button Nationwide Significant 16988.00 Step 2: Select proposed warning Risk Threshold: device and SSM. Then click the Risk Index with Horns: 18753.72 UPDATE button. Quiet Zone Risk Index: 12920.24 Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the Select SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index fails below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button httn• //c fatcrtlatn fra tint onv /nniPt /erPn acnx ?7nnP.id=AA1 R 8/16/2004 OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, esen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: April 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Railroad Quiet Zone Councilmember Niesen has raised several issues regarding the railroad quiet zone process and the status of Federal regulations. In order to address the status of the City's application which has been awaiting finalization of Federal rules, Dave McKenzie from SEH was asked to make a presentation to the Council. Mr. McKenzie will update the Council on the current status of the Federal regulations and the City's application which is being held in abeyance pending the ability to file an application. Mr. McKenzie will also be available then to answer questions regarding this situation. 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.cityolbrooklyncenter.org City Council Agenda Item No. 8a City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Hearings on 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements Resolution Ordering Improvements and Approving Plans and Specifications for 48` Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for 48` Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepn County Tax Rolls A series of two public hearings are scheduled on April 25, 2005. The first hearing is to order improvements and approve plans and specifications for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements. The second hearing is to consider certification of proposed special assessments for the project. Owners of all properties adjacent to the proposed project have petitioned for the improvements and have consented to the use of special assessments for funding a portion of the project costs. I. Explanation of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway and storm drainage improvements along 48` Avenue North from the centerline of Drew Avenue North to the centerline of Lilac Drive North. The project was previously established by the City Council on March 14, 2005 by Resolution 2005 -51. On March 28, 2005 the City Council received the feasibility report and called for a public hearing for April 25, 2005 to consider these improvements. The feasibility report provides a description of the recommended improvements and an estimated project budget. The proposed improvements can generally be described as follows: 1: Street Improvements including base preparation, installation of concrete curb and gutter and driveway aprons, bituminous paving and boulevard restoration replacement; 2. Storm Drainage Improvements including installation of new storm sewers, repair and replacement of existing storm sewers, installation of new and repair and replacement of existing catch basins and manholes. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway m m g y Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number b 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 II. Summary Explanation of Assessments Assuming he City Council orders the above described improvements for 48` Avenue North Street g P 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. The feasibility report included a preliminary assessment roll identifying four (4) properties for special assessment of street and storm drainage costs. 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 1 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 The project schedule for the proposed improvements to 48` Avenue North has been compressed to allow the project to be included in the bid documents for the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive project. This project bidding method is recommended to allow the City to obtain lower construction prices by combining a relatively small project (48` Avenue) with a much larger project (Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive). The City is required to publish two separate legal notices of public hearings for projects involving partial funding from special assessments. Due to scheduling issues, the required legal notices for the proposed 48` Avenue improvements will not be completed until May 9, 2005. Therefore, staff is requesting that the public hearings for the 48` Avenue improvements be continued until the Council meeting on May 9, 2005 to allow for the completion of the required publication requirements. It is recommended that the City Council open both public hearings for the 48` Avenue improvements at the April 25, 2005 City Council meeting, receive public input, and continue both public hearing until the May 9, 2005 City Council meeting. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE 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 Nos. 16274 and 16275; 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 and storm drainage 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. 16274 for street improvements and Special Assessment Levy No. 16275 for storm drainage S 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on March 14, 2005 authorized consideration of street and storm drainage improvements in the area generally described as "48 Avenue North"; more specifically described as follows: that portion of 48 Avenue North between the centerline of Drew Avenue North and the centerline of Lilac Drive North; and WHEREAS, the Council has previously received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in,the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on March 28, 2005 adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for 48 Avenue North; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing was held on,A ril 25, 2005 and May 9, 2005 at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the p Y p g opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the April 25, 2005 and May 9, 2005 hearings; 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 $38,737.68; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for said project. RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Street and Storm Drainage Improvement along 48 Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Lilac Drive North are hereby ordered. 2. The plans and specifications for said improvement project are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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 CENTE 2 PEi+[E�.INC ASSESSMENT RQLL 3/2812005 48TH AVENtI S.- ASST STORM Skfi1VEIt Im ..R 7YEM9N7S.' 1MPROV# =MENT PRWECT 200.004 TERIN EQUAL INSTALLMENTS EXTENDING �D11ER A :PERIOD: OF EN (10� YEAFS Q 3'! tFFI I I I I I 10- 118 -21-42 -0007 14748 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH 1 16274 I $8,353.45 1 16275 1 $2,538.49 10- 118 -21-42 -0008 13625 48TH AVENUE NORTH I 16274 I $2,558.76 1 16275 1 $777.56 10- 118 -21-42 -0041 14800 LILAC DRIVE NORTH I 16274 I $14,476.21 1 16275 1 $4,399.08 10- 118 -21-42 -0044 13615 48TH AVENUE NORTH I 16274 1 $4,321.04 I 16275 I $1,313.09 I I (TOTAL ASSESSMENTS I I $29,709.46 1 I $9,028.22 I I I I I I I I I I 1 Pagel City Council Agenda Item No. 9a i MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning nd Zoning S eci Lisa t %J�- g g P Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -006 Date: April 14, 2005 On the April 25, 2005 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2005- 006 submitted by Diem (Diane) Do requesting a Special Use Permit for an educational use to operate a cosmetology training center at 3260 County Road 10. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -006 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, 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 April 14, 2005 meeting and was recommended for approval. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Application Filed on 3 -31 -05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 5 -30 -05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005 -006 Applicant: Diem (Diane) Do Location: 3260 County Road 10 Request: Special Use Permit The applicant Diem (Diane) Do is seeking a special use permit to operate the Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center in an approximate 3,000 sq. ft. tenant space at 3260 County Road 10. The property in question is zoned CIA (Service /Office) and is located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Northway Drive. The 3260 building is the second one story building westerly of Northway Drive and south of an access road serving this site and the multi story office building further to the west. The property in question is bounded on the south by County Road 10 with C2 zoned property on the opposite side of the street containing CUB Foods and other associated retail uses; on the west by a multi story office building; on the north by R1 zoned property containing single family homes; and on the east by C1A zoned property containing a credit union and Northway Drive with the old Jerry's site on the opposite side of the street (zoned C2). The cosmetology training center is regarded as an educational use which includes post secondary schools, business schools, trade schools and the like but excludes public and private elementary and secondary schools per Section 35 -320, Subdivision 3d of the zoning ordinance. Such uses are special uses in the C1 and CIA (Service/Office) zoning district. The applicant proposes to operate the cosmetology training center with her partner Mai Ho to provide cosmetology education and training services. Such schools are licensed by the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, under the cosmetology school license. The applicant will be seeking such license to operate the facility at the above location. They will be providing education and training services to help students prepare for Minnesota licensing in cosmetology, as a manicurist, and an estitician. They propose to occupy the space formerly occupied by Brookdale Eye Clinic and some additional available space adjacent to the eye clinic. In addition, they will be providing cosmetology, manicurist and estitician services to the public for training purpose for their students. Beauty and barber services are permitted uses in the CIA zoning district while the educational aspect of the use requires the special use permit being sought by the applicant. The applicant has submitted written information (attached) explaining their operation including a business plan for the Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center. Also provided are the applicant's comments regarding the special use permit standards. This information is attached for the Commission's review. With respect to the special use permit standards, the applicant notes that this will be a new venture that will bring new students and clients to the area that will 4 -14 -05 Page 1 increase business around the area, that their proposal will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor substantially diminish or impair property values and they note, in fact, the vocational school is for the advancement of students and the general enjoyment of the public by providing discounted services. They note that the special use will conform to applicable regulations within the zoning district as well as the regulations from the Department of Commerce regarding cosmetology schools as they obtain their license for such a facility. The standards for special use permits require that the proposed special use promote and enhance the general public welfare and not be detrimental to or endanger the health, safety and welfare of the public; not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate neighborhood nor substantially diminish or impair property values; not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property; be designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets; and conform with applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. We find no conflict between the applicant's proposal and the standards for special use. permits contained in the zoning ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices of the Planning Commission's consideration have been sent to surrounding property owners. RECOMMENDATION All in all, it is believed that the standards se fors special permit are met. It is recommended that P the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 The Special Use Permit is issued to Diem p (Diane) Do and Mai Ho on behalf of the Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center as an educational use. Any expansion or major alteration of the use not comprehended by this application shall be subject to an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Tenant improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 4. A copy of the applicant's cosmetology school license and cosmetology license shall be kept on file with the city. 5. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. 4 -14 -05 Page 2 Je ■Bill Iii IiI�Ii /I/ mnsus m at III lt�i ss� ��ie�i�► W© MCA M 0 f ow Mai f i my W" a- fill =K!9 I" =a m" Im r til mm I ■n /LA r. A K T t s Vi_ kl Sw Y t a Y a 4 v Fes. r s sSx�'sa z v x o a m ;fib uk u" Q ;5 4 4,0 t� „'f„ R D es <y„rr.o%,n ro+ I ti a�. F: Y o q o Pt a f e At', r x,, 1 'x" a*w w c W,d xt r y �r R q tlt h �d y Tl rrn F r rz6 m }0. x Y "x *w.:'.,r+'' .„,.,,m Y a G d R„ t a s z t4 a 4a z fP fir; F 5^ —ea*%� t��d GR 7 ��2 z� a 'x' Y't� f3 ��''s '4�" t r� +d.Krw* c�j,�� zfi-� d�t"� i t j h x b �.g r f s�� f a s S 'Y.; W •rY'w';,y.,, y am F A rp down ..m dam QTUI A t M 1 f I 4 SITE PLAN Al SCALE: NOT TO SCALE AREA COUNT BREAKDOWN E4511M AREA 1,950 5F. E�'AN510N AREA '104 Sr-. t. t I a I APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR: COSMETOLOGY TRAINING DIEM DO AND HOLLYWOOD CENTER PROPOSAL �-L E U 1 I April Cotney v REALTOR d I�i- 1CCEPTIDI.IL C Direct: (763) 569 -5710 'C Cell: (763) 442 -6086 Office: (763) 566 -5770 Fax: (763) 569-5700 Ct�a>n lin Park Office 3 aprilcotney@edinarealty coin► 11200 Commerce Drive N. 1 AM Chaatplin MN 55316 Special Use Permit for Hollywood Cosmetology P yw Training Center. 1. This new venture in a new cosmetology school will bring new students and clients to the area and will in addition increase businesses around the area due to the attraction of the school. 2. This new special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood due to the fact that this is an Vocational School and is for the advancement of students and general enjoyment of the public as another salon to get discounted cosmetology salon services provided at a discount price from the students of the school. U 3. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This does not apply to the school that is being proposed. 4. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The reason that this is fact is due to the well appointed stop signs and stop lights which will negate potential traffic congestion. In addition, to the fact that this building as at least 43 parking spaces right next to the building and another 100+ that it could utilize behind the five -story tower across from it. 5. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Due to the fact that State Department of r' Commerce heavily regulates the Cosmetology School arena there should be no concern for the School in complying heavily with the City and State regulations for the area(s) that the building is within. Please see attached Department of Commerce Cosmetology Rules Chapter 2642 2644 which were provided to my client when she obtained an application. In addition, please find attached as well the application for Cosmetology School License. uj v r N N kVAILABLE I 1 C3 2,200 SF N i F ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN m I TENANT SUMMARY 0"'ClAAFA .emu TOTAL LNm $i co AVAIL; .BL t I O I J 9L SBLE I 01 C N o Q 6 a e Y N 3 u j t s N FLOOR PLAN t v E AVAILABLE csM O BROOKLYN CROSSING. OFFICE PARK ,.0 w�....w �°n 1° A• PR -4 Mcou Ir"m erooiumfFNtFA YO STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE APPLICATION FOR 85 SEVENTH PLACE EAST, Suite 600 COSMETOLOGY SCHOOL LICENSE ST. PAUL, MN 55101 PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. CH. 155A (651) 296 -6319 This application must be completed by all schools maintaining, advertising, soliciting for, or conducting any cosmetology course of instruction in Minnesota for profit or tuition charge. 1. SCHOOL INFORMATION Name of School i Phone School Address City State Zip 2. OWNERSHIP OF SCHOOL (Additional sheets should be marked as Exhibit A) I Sole Proprietor I List name and home address of proprietor Partnership I List the names and titles of all partners with their respective home addresses Corporation I List Corporate name and address List names and titles of corporate officers with their respective home addresses 3. HOURS OF OPERATION 1 Days of the week school will be open Hours the school will be open w i 4. MANAGER INFORMATION (name of the licensed manaqer who will be emploved by the school) Name License No. Expiration Date 5, INSTRUCTOR INFORMATION (Additional sheets should be marked Exhibit B) List ALL Instructors w License Number I Full- time /Part-time I Days/Hours for Instruction j 6. ZONING REQUIREMENTS (To be completed by local officials) I, the undersiqned local qovernment official, do herebv certifv that the School: MEETS LOCAL BUILDING CODES Yes No I MEETS LOCAL FIRE CODES Yes No Signature i Signature Position I Date I Position i Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 day of 20 Notary Signature Notary Signature (SEAL] [SEAL] REV. 10195 (OVER) 7. ALL ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION (submit additional sheets as required) Provide a diagram of the school drawn to scale on 8 -1/2" x 11" or 8 -1/2" x 14" paper, including the dimensions of the school as a whole and designating the size and location of all entrances and exists, and the location and dimensions of all required areas and facilities. Mark this.as Exhibit C. Provide a current balance sheet, income statement and adequate supporting documentation, prepared on an accrual basis by an independent public accountant or certified public accountant, the information submitted must be siqned by the accountant who prepared it and must include that person's address. Mark this as Exhibit D. Provide copies of all media advertising and promotional literature and brochures currently used or expected to be used in the near future. Mark this as Exhibit E. Provide a complete inventory of eouipment and tools available for instruction. Mark this as Exhibit F. Provide copies of inspection reports by location and state regulating agencies indicating that the premises and conditions are under which the students work and study and the student living quarters, if any, which are owned by the school, are sanitary healthful and safe. Mark this as Exhibit G. Provide copies of all Minnesota enrollment agreement forms and contract forms and all such forms used in Minnesota. Mark these as Exhibit H. Provide the current enrollment of each course of instruction offered. Also, provide the maximum enrollment that can be accommodated with present staff, equipment and facilities. Mark this as Exhibit I Provide copies of all financial aid and refund policies. Mark this as Exhibit J. I Provide copies of all student rules and disciplinary policies. Mark this as Exhibit K. Provide evidence of liability insurance coverage of at least $25,000 per incident and an accumulation of $150,000 for each premium year. Mark this as Exhibit L. Provide evidence of workers' compensation insurance pursuant to Minn. Stat. 4 176.182. Provide School Surety Bond from the attached form. AFFIDAVIT IF THE APPLICANT SCHOOL IS OWNED BY: O An individual, this affidavit is to be made by them. c s D A partnership, this affidavit is to be made by the manage g partner. O A corporation or association, this affidavit is to be mad by it� officers. STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF being duly sworn, deposes and says that he /she is the of TITLE SCHOOL respecting which the foregoing application for license is made; that he /she has read the foregoing application; and that the statements therein made are true to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief. I certify that this document has not been altered or changed in any manner from the form adopted by the Department of Commerce. -i SIGNATURE t; Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 f Notary Public County: [SEAL] My Commission Expires: 1 A Business Plan For: Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center Presented by: Diem Do 2005 March 21, yl I Obiective Statement Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center is scheduled to begin operations in July 2005 under the leadership of Diem Do and Mai Ho in the Brooklyn Center area of the Twin Cities. Their business model will be based on Diem's experience at the Los Angeles School of Nails, a leading California school for cosmetology. Based on the growing demand for licensed cosmetologists in the state of Minnesota and the lack of qualified training centers in the northwest Twin Cities metro area the management team has targeted Brooklyn Center as its company base. S J The initial plan calls for six full time staff including Mai and Diem. The school plans to start with fifty students and growing to a targeted student population of eighty students within six months. The centers focus will be to create an education and training program leading to state licensing in the following areas: 1) Cosmetology 2) Manicurist 3) Estitician Companv Profile Company Name: Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center Location: 3260 County Road 10 Suite B Brooklyn Center, MN. 55443 I Business Focus: Cosmetology Education/Training /Services Principals: Diem Do and Mai Ho 1 Ownership Ownership will be shared between Diem Do and Mai Ho. Both principles have had extensive training and experience within the cosmetology arena. Diane Do was trained and licensed in the state of California. She currently owns two nail shops in the Twin Cities area. Mai Ho was also trained and licensed in the state of California and has over seven years experience as an owner operator in nails and cosmetology. Ownership and management will be shared equally between Mai and Diem. i Deim Do will serve as CEO while Mai will serve as company President. Diem's responsibilities will include accounting, advertising, financial management, human resource management, and staffing. Mai 's responsibilities include training, inventory management, information technology, operations management, and facility management. Organizational Structure Diem Do CEO Mai Ho President Company Manager Licensed Cosmetology Instructor Licensed Cosmetology Instructor Receptionist Services/Products *Education and training services to prepare for Minnesota licensing g *Hair styling and cutting *Skin Care *Massage Therapy *Manicurist/Nail Service *Skin care, beauty, and hair products Capital E ui ment Phones 2 each $200.00 $400.00 Computers 2 each $1500.00 $3,000.00 Fax Machine —1 each $200.00 $200.00 Copy Machine —1 each $200.00 $200.00 Salon Chairs 80 each $375.00 $30,000.00 Hair Dryers 20 each $300.00 $6,000.00 F Building Ventilation System $15,000.00 Projected start up total $54,800.00 Advertising Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center plans on utilizing the following media sources to advertise their service: 1) Local newspapers 2) Yellow Pages 3) Minneapolis Star Tribune 4) St. Paul Pioneer Press 5 5) Direct mail 6) Trade journals Initial 2005 Projected Revenues Trainine and Education 1) Manicurist license $1,800.00 Licensing requirements include 350 hours of education and training. Projected head count for the balance of 2005 60 students. Total 2005 Manicurist licensing revenue E $108,000.00. 2) Cosmetology license $6,000.00 Licensing requirements include 1550 hours of education and training. Projected head count for the balance of 2005 75 students. Total 2005 Cosmetology licensing revenue $60,000.00. 3) Esthitician license $3,000.00 Licensing requirements include 600 hours of education and training. Projected head count for the balance of 2005 5 students. Total 2005 Esthihcian licensing revenue $15,000.00. Services 1) Manicures $5.00 per manicure. 2005 forecast 1950 manicures or $9,750.00. 21 Pedicures $10.00 per pedicure. 2005 forecast =1750 pedicures or ,500.00 3) Acrylic Nails $15.00 per full set nails. 2005 forecast 1950 acrylic nail replacements or $29,250.00 4) Fills $7.00 per fill. 2005 Forecast =1000 fills or $7,000.00. 5) Facials $20.00 per hour. Average 1.5 hours for a full facial. Forecasted 2005 facial hours 700 hours or $14,000.00. 6) Haircuts $5.00 per cut. 2005 forecast 4,875 haircuts or $24,375.00 Product Sales Forecasted shampoo, conditioner, beauty product sales $12,000.00 Total ro'ect p ed revenue for the second half of 2005 $296,875.00 Estimated Fixed Costs Lease expenses $15.00 per square foot gross including CAM and utilities. Projected building square footage 3000. Lease cost $45,000.00 per �:?i .month. Phone and internet service $90.00 per month. Insurance Taxes Miscellaneous expenses: Heat and Electricity costs: $600.00 per month Milestone Schedule. L.A 1) Finalize business plan March, 23, 2005 2) Select school site March 27, 2005 3) Finalize lease hold agreement April 1, 2005 ,j 4) Finalize Build-out- 1, 2005 SWOT Analvsis Strengths: Diem Do and Mai Ho have been in the Beauty industry for the past 8 years. Diem Do has operated and ran two very successful nail salons for the past two and six years. Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center have been two of the primary areas that she has come to know and understand both as a resident and as a shop owner she understands the people J of the areas. Their experience in managing two separate locations, (Brooklyn Park and Rogers) has given her great insight into the business side of beauty salons, etc. Diem has developed a niche for connecting with past instructors and colleagues in the beauty and nail industry that have enabled her to gain many business connections which she will be able to utilize as her future cosmetology school managers and instructors. Weaknesses: Neither Diem Do nor Mai Ho have ever owned /operated a cosmetology school before. Their desired selection for the future home of the beauty school could limit their business for future growth due to the limited expandable space that is available to them presently. Opportunities: There are not any cosmetology schools operating within a 5- 10 mile radius of this location. Beauty salons are an expanding market There are constantly new entrants into the beauty salon market. The Professional Beauty Business is a 72 Billion Dollar Industry domestically and 250 billion nationally. This industry consists of more than one million people including hairdressers, salon owners, manufacturers, and distributors. Those working in cosmetology held about 754,000 jobs in 2002. Of these, barbers, hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists held 651,000 jobs; manicurists and pedicurists, 51,000; skin care specialists, 25,000; and shampooers, 25,000. 1- -1 Most of these workers are employed in beauty salons or barber shops, but they are also found in nail salons, department stores, nursing and other residential care homes, �i and drug and cosmetics stores. Nearly every town has a barbershop or beauty salon, but employment in this occupation is concentrated in the most populous cities and States. Almost half of all barbers, cosmetologists, and other personal appearance workers are self employed. Many own their own salon, but a growing number lease booth space or a chair from the salon's owner. Overall employment of barbers, cosmetologists, and other personal appearance workers is projected to grow about as fast as the average for all occupations through 2012. This is due to the increasing of population, incomes, and demand for personal appearance services. In addition to those arising from 'ob growth, numerous J gr Job openings will arise from the need to replace workers who transfer to other occupations, retire, or leave the labor force for other reasons. As a result, job opportunities generally should be good. Threats: There are some larger schools in the Twin Cities that have been in business for a great number of years and have a great reputation. Ex: Horst Beauty School— member of the Aveda Salons family located in downtown Minneapolis. The cosmetology industry is a highly competitive industry. Currently there are approximately 30+ cosmetology schools in the whole state of Minnesota. Due to the fact that cosmetology schools and salons are in a heavily licensed environment the Minnesota State Department of Commerce wh o issues the licensing) maybe slow in providing for the issuance of a license for Diem Do and Mai Ho to be able to open their school. i k The Minnesota Department of Commerce requires a 50 sqft per student for the space that is occupied. a Summary Overall Diem Do and Mai Ho have established themselves within r the industry that they desire to expand in, the communities in which they presently take up personal residence and business residence, and have shown in the past six years of running multiple businesses that they have the wherewithal to begin a new endeavor and be extremely successful. Brooklyn Center would be greatly enhanced by their new Cosmetology School and the business and employment opportunities in which they could provide the city and cities surrounding them. 1' �u\ t� ;a 1 f City Council Agenda Item No. 9b i MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning nd Zoning S ecia isl t g g P Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -007 Date: April 20, 2005 On the April 25, 2005 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2005- 007 submitted by C. M. Architecture, P.A. on behalf of Magnum Development Company, requesting Site and Building Plan aprpoval to redevelop 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard into a Starbuck's coffee shop. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -007, various site and building plans for the proposed development and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, 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 April 14, 2005 meeting and was recommended for approval. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Application Filed on 3 -31 -05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 5 -30 -05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005 -007 Applicant: C. M. Architecture, PA Location: 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant, C. M. Architecture, PA on behalf of Magnum Development Company, is seeking site and building plan approval to redevelop the old Kentucky Fried Chicken site at 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard into a Starbuck's Coffee Shop. The property in question is zoned C2 (Commerce) and restaurants such as being proposed are permitted uses in this zoning district. This restaurant is not classified as a convenience food restaurant, which would require a special use permit because the number of seats is less than 40. The site is 18,394 sq. ft. (.422 acres) and contains a 1,870 sq. ft. vacant building that formerly was a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. The property is bounded on the north by the 50's Grill restaurant; on the east by a private (non public) roadway lying between 55 and 56 Avenues north which serves as access to this site and neighboring commercial sites; on the south by the Brookdale car wash; and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. The applicant's plan is to demolish the existing building to its foundation and to rebuild a new 1,870 sq. ft. Starbuck's coffee shop on that foundation. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site will be generally the same as it was for the Kentucky Fried Chicken operation, that being from the private road to the east. However, the applicant will be modifying access to eliminate the northerly of the two access points in order to provide stacking space for the new facility. The internal layout for the Starbuck's building has the order board and pick up window on the north side of the building rather than on the south where it was for Kentucky Fried Chicken. As indicated above, the northerly access will be eliminated, however, a break in the curb will exist for drainage purposes. The operation generally is a pick up and take out coffee operation with some additional food and snack items. Twelve seats are provided inside the building for year round use and some additional seating is provided in a concrete patio area to the west of the building. Thirteen parking spaces including one handicap space are provided on the south side of the site. These 13 parking spaces will accommodate up to 26 seats and employees. Additional parking could also be provided on the site if need be. Circulation around the site for the drive up facility is in a counterclock wise fashion. It appears that there is stacking space for four vehicles up to the order board and an additional vehicle at the pick up window. Parking and driving on the south side of the site is for two way traffic with the trash enclosure at the southwest corner of the site. Circulation around the site will be tight but appears to be workable. 4 -14 -05 Page 1 GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES a The applicant has provided some grading, drainage and utility information to the City Engineer, who is evaluating the proposal and will be making written comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. An erosion and sediment control plan has been submitted including silt fences and silt fence barriers around catch basins during construction. The site is not required to have formal Watershed Management Commission review, however, the Director of Works is evaluating drainage and water run off. Generally the site will sheet drain as was the case for the Kentucky Fried Chicken operation. Repaving will be done, however, the applicant is proposing to maintain the underlying base. Parking lot and circulation lanes will be basically in the same location as previously. The Director of Public Works is recommending that any existing bituminous curbing be replaced with concrete curb and gutter. With respect to sewer and water services, the applicant plans to utilize existing services. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans. This .422 acre site requires 80 landscape points. The applicant's proposal is to provide over 80 landscape points with the addition of four shade trees (White Spire Birch) within the green strip areas adjacent to the private roadway. Thirteen decorative trees are to be provided, ten of which will be located around the perimeter of the site and three close to the building. Shrubs such as Columnar Juniper, Deschampsia Bronze Veil, Taunton Yew, Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle, Golden Barberry, Slowmound Mugho Pine, Japanese Dwarf Juniper, Calamagrostis Karl Foerster, Gold Flame Spirea, Sporobolus Prairie Dropseed are provided in planting areas around the perimeter of the building, generally. Underground irrigation will be required throughout the site. BUILDING The applicant has provided building elevations showing the proposed exterior of the Starbuck's coffee shop. The exterior will be primarily an EIFS of a colonial tan color. Brick veneer will be provided around the lower portion of the building extending above the doors and windows. The brick is to be colored endicott burgundy sands. A dark bronze metal coping of anodized aluminum will be around the top. of the structure. The front portion of the building will be elevated higher than that of the rear with a parapet wall being carried around the building to provide screening for mechanical equipment. LIGHTING /TRASH The applicant has submitted a photometric plan indicating compliance with the city ordinances. They will be making use of existing light poles on the site. The major concern with lighting is 4 -14 -05 Page 2 that it be shielded and directed onto the site and avoid off site glare. The applicant's plan appears to comply with these requirements. The site plan shows the location for the proposed trash enclosure. It will be located at the southwest comer of the site and will be a masonry structure of concrete block with brick veneer to match that of the building. Solid wood gates will be provided. The height of the structure is approximately 8 ft. RECOMMENDATION The plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the building official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas as directed by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current specifications and details. 4 -14 -05 Page 3 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 11, 2005 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works TP� SUBJECT: Coffee Shop 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard Preliminary Site Plan Review Planning Commission Application 2005 -007 Public Works Department staff has reviewed the following preliminary documents submitted for review under Planning Commission Application 2005 -007 for property located at 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard (former KFC site). Site Demolition Plan, Sheet AD 1.0, dated March 30, 2005 Site Plan, Sheet A0.1, dated March 30, 2005 Mechanical Plan, Sheet M1.0, dated March 15, 2005 The following comments and recommendations regarding the proposed preliminary site plans are provided for your consideration. Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer Service Water and sanitary sewer service is currently provided to the property from a 6 inch diameter water main and 8 inch diameter sanitary sewer main located within the right -of -way of Brooklyn Boulevard. The existing public sewer and water systems can provide adequate service for the proposed land use. 1. The existing water service curb stop for the site is damaged and must be repaired prior to initiating building demolition. The applicant must make arrangements with the Supervisor of Public Utilities for an inspection of the curb stop once repairs have been completed. The curb stop valve must be capable of complete termination of water service to the building prior to demolition. 2. The water meter must be removed prior to building demolition. The applicant's contractor shall obtain a new water meter from the City Utility Division and install the meter prior to restoring water service to the building. 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 u)iiiu). ritvnfbmnklvnrenter.or-a 3. The sanitary sewer service to the building shall be isolated prior to building demolition. This work shall include cutting and capping all services and floor drains within the building and installation of a temporary plug at the service discharge point within the manhole located along Brooklyn Boulevard. 4. Utility service extensions must meet City of Brooklyn Center design standards. The location and method of connection to existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be subject to approval by the Supervisor of Public Utilities. 5. The proposed site plan shall be subject to the approval of the City Fire Chief and Building Official, including hydrant spacing requirements and any other requirements of the Fire Department. Street Access and Surface Parking The site is currently accessed by a private service road along the eastern property boundary. The proposed site improvements include eliminating one of the two driveway accesses onto the service road. The applicant is also proposing to remove substantial portions of the existing site pavement to allow for modifications to the drive- through lane, building construction, and utility connections. Portions of the existing parking lot are constructed with bituminous curb. The parking lot and bituminous curb are in a fairly deteriorated condition. Site improvements shall include pavement and parking lot improvements in order to bring the property into compliance with the requirements of City Ordinance Section 35 -710, including the provisions listed below. 1. In all districts, other than RI and R2, all open off street driving and parking areas shall be improved with a minimum of two inches of hot mixed paver laid bituminous mat, or a comparable concrete slab, placed over a well compacted subgrade and gravel base. The base gravel shall conform to the Minnesota Highway Department specifications for Class 5 gravel. 2. The perimeters of all driving and parking areas shall be bounded by cast in place concrete curb and gutter which conforms with the Minnesota Highway Department Type "B -612 Other shapes of concrete curb and gutter may be permitted providing the design provides an equal cross sectional area and is approved in writing by the City Engineer. The concrete used for curbing shall conform to current City specifications. Storm Drainage The proposed site improvement would result in a minor decrease in impervious surface. The existing site currently drains by overland flow onto the service road. Storm sewer is not available adjacent to the eastern property boundary. The proposed site improvements would continue to route surface drainage to the service road by overland drainage. 1. Site improvements shall include the installation of valley gutter spanning both curb openings along the western edge of the service road. 2. Site improvements shall include necessary provisions to prevent roof drains from creating ice conditions along sidewalks and walkways. The above comments are provided based on the information provided by the applicant at the time of this review. Subsequent approval of the final site plans may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, gas and electric service, final grading, and geometric design of streets as established by the city engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval and recording of the final plat. ��r� a��c�� Iloilo III law# OR r MUM a RISEN logo now MEN Lz FEW WIN %m �m mm Nile A mm OR mum /1111 1111 In 01� HUM MOM, ■,r■ m COL 'S F:�� s ae c, 4U r, 7 u 111111�11i� n x O� i s AL ow o{ a 1" ,r 3.. t i P r a e 14 pe q p m:^ g- &a r �r s� 2 �t- r. 2 r 'I F a d ,�,'`4+"x":� ..p.a°a ,a t .,tea f -d mp ..fir T� ?,`a"�i .'6 t p A .s a,. ry A zr•"�,2 tv- s i a sz r �v ,r.3;,- ��.s�� `a z,.., t x� ^�'3 :.r a z f y s 4y 2 4 t p -�k;� t k� O' tG '�r• fir: x �,ta �,wwa. *r�,,,.t`•, a L 4 f x �-e a� r i y�.s mss'€, `h a .S�.3 +•�.r a '�ac� '�"�a s� i 4`' s h a r s d ,a'i 2x1'• r ,d}x vr..rd 't'r'r *aa*`x:'ga i a -a. s .e •r,€ r. 9'" k c r', `m': a z may* i .'.r'. #s •e"€ S»�'� "'�a'- w."*<.r-"°"l`€' r r e as: q g NK x m.,> �,,,.aa" x:4"4., z 4 ,•nit x a a. mss- re^�� 1 s x a-, sue^ xe, .M_s .,w,.m i OF4 P o l rT IL wr lilt 9 LJ U I RECEIVED IIAR L o "'I TRACT s I I a a l CITY �aKtYPJ d 10=6 BIm.eDdc I J 1 w0. 1Ra I -T h N78 "E 184.80 t I tL �aaa I C7. LEGAL -fe -1-. x 1 1 I s_ f' PARCEL t: I 7-4 0. Re61.t-M Led S ay W.1419. 1broaph c..rty li.weto tl.as PARCEI. 2: 1 9 STUCCO d^ y} g O F 3 I An u1*,kWd 16.400/336.706Ma L. No. 5512 8 r~ U I Trod F ed E Ro0vt ed Land 9 N.1411 tt.."b C 16nw.ets to t oo A ^t I h I L m�nl N. s a?4 as "ad 4y zT C. w naot Lod A�.mim �o I Aopmly AdtrwC t TJ I Total Arse d Propoat 1&304 eon (0.422 sere.) p 1 147 ��i Tom Arse d &"q 1670 qR R 1 N 3 A i le tlty d Nhrepa erertYY Ir b n (e d m""d Rosdr o b PA A E 3 r al e r to t Ppool' r.nilr 4 13 e -0OON, dd 2- Zat6-61. C an t' ote� I 378 183.81 40 o A°°, n +ro^+ -y Walk- A... tow Raid redoll n aloe. me- t.ratba Rear p.., F-ee. bft -tte. ee.t.d aq*- not. 0s Call (651- 46+ -cm) To Wq!!n and Lod Am- C .e Nebra4a C— Coro, a..ua. a T— 1 E81.43RND BUMVINO Thlo R 0.t am b to k*- m 1 ei. rnp PPlot end t aur.ey an CW Lod 7R N r oewa .-e nrede F WAW d d0. e1. 't6nF. stord Data pierrd. b ALTA/Af91 r S ).k* eetderA.d 7.41 C'A od odePew ey ALTA. AGSM and NSPS F 1056. ed irtlde. Ren 1. 2. 3, 4. 6, 7 (.x 4 0. 10. 11 (e) d Tear A eon!. F1r.ao t to the Aaera.y as adapted SP by ALTA. NS ood AM &A&V S tb k. and F diet m dab d artMmNan err 1 f.0- eor11R.. O t proper Raid VICINTY Pro-&- 36 rank Fdn ed Pd -*-te arra P ..0..., a 0-, F to aoli— r-alt. F ao�-ald.. to thaee ed..d F eN Mbina.n Any., Alata n md CF... Reyierneea Ter &-..y 10' md. Whkh Coda Lod Bend -re far ALTA ACSN Lod TRW 5w.y. 40' Ro DPW W. 10th day of Ne..ra 2004. SCALE N FEET ira 0 10 Ttl 10 e0 i� r L71v1.. F. Mdreeo, A6r.r. R.6 Nee 21753 0 Denote a tan Men mg cwr+Na wn: sod m zmt PREPARED 8Y: LOT Sl2VEY5. COMPANY, WC ALTA /ACSM TITLE SURVEY: Tix MAGNUM DEVELOPMENT 7 601 73RD AV RCIIPe@ 7601 73RD AVE;NO. BR00NLYN PAW, MN 55426 BROOKLYN BLVD i Ph. 763 560 -3093 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINN. Fx. (7833 560 -3522 nnoarY..�R.YwNUaraa I N 60025 M. w 667 51 RRECEIVED MAR 3 1 005 OF BROOKLYN CENTER v 41. t EA® ON AND:. anreuu v vim. MENL CO1QiA0L PLAN r...e+na'rai.+.u: nwo.v. asdl r I nsnaa.mairml :C.W Ammwbt IL11C, *.A. ^il Mn N-.. CI. �IArN.IM %4 TMlla wT� -NC sAN BkiMV16 4 f• set rviGe ANf 011a11 wxxGProl A SS Oi •�seNA Melt CllrtAlrt[ aP M1rI:l ArRArYY. tiYBIMNS WJL• /I Gr1aM"breww l R AYa� 40A. t reosr•er v,�sr ovnvvrw .wren tCm nm�ow uwr G CWACfcY1TC1f x' il” r 1 1MFAtL Atttft'2'6Me0A1gM GATCII AV:MYM I:AA1tt MrNtR1.1R IYIk MYIIIIdI x r MR(•VIAQOtr1A ®!'�Y MO ras. LpO1AT mengr mw�Lw�vcnsvr Ir1sA1Y t raid f�7 all w to MlI� MYR w: rumsirrt• roc Ek16TRlfi GUILDNI �xra iisiaASx �n .I .5512 BROWN BLVD sAve No tM1 p 1 ut Sfm I.. PLAN'' avwoxx .4'.:.rm nFtiirr lam 1 uw;L HO, [*A 1 r /i uyyny ro RECEIVED MAR 3 1 2005 CITY-OF OROOKLyN_CENTFH ",i CwcwRinM ,riY6W1 �1R[Mr N RC D Mire ...rpa M[rxNl rr i•.aJY,- M,I..00wliR ifll,„i5f[ HIM1DIM IM6 m nax H v ixF,aii 1 hrirAimn,m i 'r. Iri:oe s c �y�- �tS�• w�.m.. srnw r m r2rtrxl .i Y0t1T11 i BE12GQ 'CURB /CUrn31 �wruas.ice,at arar tnAxvi�ra t' swavrrp CONCPAVBBIFDETAL Aal BIiLl0U8P�11VE3BtiL)ETAi. a ml�ts ur4w r aRt '1 T1ML _w �At rs1. i' wY A rr� �rxarm rxairm T S.. 7rx��Y i tr r.v. snaar orry .+f.euaaru�nwifYu IIr� roi s• ee 1 i x II X: 86C-WALK DETdL q 8YYN(3►J©iiA7E CiION a TRAFFOSTIW** 'r., �d1r8 YS'•s0 .L: /dtsYr"t -o sae (tali k I i..' mcrs sncraw,aar K' I 17 1. am moo rsmc nuwrnu r'e rw MIfIOMIYYr.r� 1 OIIaMi.!!7� .101alJ.w 1:. :T`• 1 Ootl..110•. R1ID Na r- Ausnro �t Cti r I j i• ar:rslraG' �x c: 1 I r .NAGNULt D@VFLOPYENF t roorrn -110 2 A_ t I Y. I. GN EwSFINq FCLNDATIt)H SHOP .sink.w*ea 5�y 'f 1 r .1 S:ri:c 1 _5512 BROOKLYN -BLVD 55 0 "r--�— sorttNO.wrnw»se r -�•snr �w wocrmnd I 2 aw.oe. •swim. I I I I How TRASH a.STEE FD: I �KIKdv!•!�O- VOCIiB:iIM-0'.: S' ti �.i c�� l I I• `Tlra Tmirj• 1 I..rAreca:ti I 7RAGT R i6'ali7El®LAIO 9xeVe'f W0.14M M�.ffm PLO re N� i 'nerar r AIm 1 lee wc�uaver pv 11M birxvslsel,+ae i FQU81N [LxstlT s/tlsbTA IWACEP R 7.x�ulS OR STAPr xa arC e• 1 a kT- 1121- h1- {I-0DIi,y 13 YAI* rM W iBilNt IrT1e11YQOr(7 .�iwm ileroas: m a E T3ILARCit� TRA9i T3�Ct0ffik�` l I` A oi .s RECEIVED r A I �nrti I aa.nx X.eri, I .m.�w... Xrr .td re.r{ aa ainrno lr rrr esol. rnr'd.cira,Xarrlwrer reltr wesu .nmmi nwreir ooai .bnrrwrMOa rrmaJr.a�urxu ElE„ i 1nr.,.rtnens m�atw•rnio er.rc.tn�,Jrerr�rr�:«vu �C Ia.r�a.�.r.rl I�� Ir•�I r 1. rrn;. rM�'. c corncT Mwrr ter rA 6!dF aR'0�004rt1 mxrT.UO6,re1'err� YRCX eW1N LCxmILT1wIT. .y 1 �.I .:amid i°'•.°.'"'_"' I rl C7 kr L, i Lraarrrrms.'r.. -t-»» 14 1.: a APIKA r x. I I rarq:c„aX, r...�.r...r+a•+�Y.r.v I D w' 1 t. 4.. L�- Ytrw• I,rwYaxrruuu I'� 1 1 I _irrr{yler/Y Wre •nra ea', eurerr :Art MlOr MarO lrM Y: C ��j} 1 T 1ea41f F/ ��V' g a Pai- -1 f�IfrCIY -N.'1 3 tiYM /r�� 11! 1mM'x r OS1r r'IYMgrrrLJw �rrail(fCNerW� Vr ]�i: lMCrfM r,Ywf rwN�ALr /LL INYYI ref C.I rrf •A M aere� M ur •,rrrJx K� I M• Y ,f'� I I u 1 M !IS[' �I ieJMl l�K sruT,u.ra rVe�J.rlrRLl7p,rr Wrri Ylerl� 4 h Mr lerfri.YYrm MiY MII[TCY:IY reYr••M •I YOYTr�Y•TM Mali.rW rLO MI Y t• -41CVA Y✓D WIIfL AMt1L1rI,Lr 1WTrrT EI'eCrYJrtM e0'Yr V M I 4 f 4< 'v In'e. YD erefe� WYM Y r'LaR b®al JCYRI'.WU. raRar IcVfrILL MO tIal I l .IOtlsfMlD.i#DA1Y ®rwM101r:LMNL M1MIIYIIII�L 1lfY1 MIMtIPLL ,rfr1 Mlle. OetM LI,Cr< •E[f/1..1111 W IILI aem 114TH rOC, f.A IXAPY1Li raaeiE rrLJi -I' t MYrOS1M YrtYYdeNM Marry. a -RIM r114L4 rrLi ®Mr1+dIW NO[L rll sra.M nO�YYaf.Y We. rucr a�ww.Y>SMlarn w4urr4eer4rmmrrlrvMrcrdM I nwnawrw k ti .T xF L/iF.NULL DEVELOPMf 1w1W1 Wtr®.M'Me{OOrrRMrlI�rYQD 41YLLr1eflQO qo ,ji P aso y C6FFEE: SN4R :4 sanmw�. r,K I:"!� i a`' I '5512 BROOKLYN BLVD r4tr is rrna nrn+.ue rE.E lerr rtrrarrlcrrerrlrpwle' rm 1 nA r4arnEr f. a 1B101B7K t�RER W Si179 uj order tre11s1r1r4wut rLYa a44rCRJtbMM 4X4u aomracoe.n M',ramer reeuar. :ie io ceQewk:ni "ir wwir osrwr rwnwitivaa .dew aana4agl mars m •rr41M�N6eR wuory scNr� 1eaXS a+lrlM etYCwrm�lmlmnroY mr LU IIIEET irtlL: Uw=WE KAk iaee4arlrr TADNR i t rM01-rW�lCRY�1 —�WXM✓ tot 1.1 purnM oErn� E arberart ri art RECEIVED MAR 31 2005 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IF IF 1 ,i•• nSOUTH E 4 T� t z i WEST ELEVATION n FAST ELEVATION Y oz ,er W j m Y N$ N.. EXTEWOR FiN19W LEGEND, ca,te,'NwN,m a aoarrure+srnoxoa�,eN N O wN,ad A i w.awavuaa+arm�Nam U i b Y y 4 ♦.MGCYtMW.w.aran0.�/aMAlli W •i.: v ins v.. Z e W O f O 0 d DRAWN DR FILL NAN Nnrvws �a°aawu~aoas .awna U O URAWM NUMBER NORTH ELEVATION °a�"^d EiIEEE NaBC Kxa tH•_ tb E7IffBUUlt EIEVARikiS SHEET NUMBER S4A y f ill s y 6��. =Q& E Pl LLJ `r e LL! lol a W U LJ.! cr 19 Vol;$ I -AAA Ag lip L b f 6 3p 4 b r a �"y, ve 3•ts V '�,2•r1 Wk s t @I 2 Ow y t porn 8 F le 'ARCHR[GfliRC' P..A. ?.NORSHWESTERN.BUILDIN6' Y1!N.:YND STx SLNEd01 YIXNEAPDC73.'NH SSt01 1 rA, E (!12 33E -BET/ fiJCI6TDYa BUILDWG l� [MAIL MMNmmaeeh.can. ORILL oasln TANTSs W J SUi1iER(n e�S ES 5f7CI�T INC CONSUkI1 NGiNfFRS' sm m 3 i i I k, LEEERW aAGNUIi oEVELOPllENI 1 55. BRO -KCYN BIYD.. AA C F J\j n PHOTOMETRIC PLAN „M E MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 14, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:39 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Rachel Lund, Sean Rahn, Dianne Reem, and Tim Roche were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioner Rex Newman was absent and unexcused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MARCH 31. 2005 There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to approve the minutes of the March 31, 2005 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Commissioners Boeck and Lund abstained as they were not present at the meeting. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2005 -006 DIEM (DIANE) DO Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2005 -006, a request for Special Use Permit approval to operate the Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center in an approximate 3,000 sq. ft. tenant space at 3260 County Road 10. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 4 -14 -05 for Application No. 2005 -006, attached.) Mr. Warren stated that the property is zoned CIA (Service /Office). The cosmetology training center is regarded as an educational use and such uses are special uses in the CI and CIA zoning districtS. Commissioner Boeck inquired as to how the city would address issues related to increased water usage and sewage capabilities. Mr. Warren responded that the utilities that serve the building should be able to accommodate the applicant's proposed use. He added that there will be some modifications to the space for sinks, etc. and the space will be inspected by the State prior to being issued a license for the school 4 -14 -05 Page 1 Commissioner Lund inquired about signs and lighting around the building. Mr. Warren responded that lighting is from the original site plan and the parcel is limited to one freestanding sign plus wall signs are limited to 10 percent of the wall area for tenant for identification. Commissioner Reem inquired about arkin requirements. Mr. Warren explained that parking p g q p P requirements do not increase with an educational use and no additional parking would be required. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION NO. 2005-006 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -006, at 7:57 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. The applicant, Diem (Diane) Do, and her representative April Cotney from Edina Realty introduced themselves. Commissioner Reem asked what hours the school will be open. Ms. Do responded that they will be open five days a week from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Commissioner Lund inquired about procedures for disposing of hazardous waste. Ms. Cotney responded that they will be complying with State standards as defined by license requirements. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearin p p pp Comm ss g p g on Application No. 2005 -006. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -006 at 8:01 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2005-005 DIEM (DIANE) DO There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to recommend to the City Council that it approve Application No. 2005 -006, submitted by Diem (Diane) Do for Special Use Permit approval to operate the Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center in an approximate 3,000 sq. ft. tenant space at 3260 County Road 10 subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special Use Permit is issued to Diem (Diane) Do and Mai Ho on behalf of the Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center as an educational use. Any expansion or major alteration of the use not comprehended by this application shall be subject to an amendment to this special use permit. 4 -14 -05 Page 2 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Tenant improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 4. A copy of the applicant's cosmetology school license and cosmetology license shall be kept on file with the city. 5. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Lund, Rahn, Reem and Roche. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its April 25, 2005 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. APPLICATION NO. 2005 -007 C. M. ARCHITECTURE. PA Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2005 -007, a request from C. M. Architecture, PA on behalf of Magnum Development Company, for site and building plan approval to redevelop the old Kentucky Fried Chicken site at 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard into a Starbuck's Coffee Shop. The site is zoned C2 (Commerce) and a restaurant such as being proposed is a permitted use. The site is 18,394 sq. ft. (.422 acres) and contains a 1,870 sq. ft. building that will be demolished to its foundation to allow construction of a new 1,870 sq. ft. building to be a Starbuck's coffee shop. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 4 -14 -05 for Application No. 2005 -007, and the City Engineer/Public Works Director's report dated 4- 11 -05, attached.) The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Mitch Booth, C M Architecture, on behalf of Magnum Development introduced himself and explained that they are seeking site and building plan approval to construct a new Starbuck's coffee shop. Commissioner Reem asked about the trash enclosure on the site. Mr. Booth explained that the trash enclosures will be in plain view of the store manager who will be responsible for maintaining the trash enclosures in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Rahn asked for further clarification on the outside patio area. Mr. Booth described the patio area as being an earth berm planter about knee high. There will be no 4 -14 -05 Page 3 enclosure or barrier since the ground around the patio area has an existing natural berm area that shields the patio area from the street and drive areas. Commissioner Boeck inquired about the location and safety of the exterior roof ladder. Mr. Booth responded that there is a locking barrier on the ladder which discourages tampering. He added that a ship's ladder is often located inside a building but it is not necessary with the building type being proposed by Starbucks based on the type of equipment used. Chris Moore, Magnum Development, explained further about the ladder Commissioner Roche inquired about additional mugho pine evergreen trees along Brooklyn Boulevard to enhance the area along the street with additional greenery. Mr. Booth responded that there is sufficient berming around the site, however, if the Commission wishes to see the crabapple trees switched out for additional evergreens, the plan can be changed to show that. Commissioner Lund inquired about lighting on the site. Mr. Booth responded that they are adding lights to the site which will improve safety and visibility. Commissioner Reem asked about hours of operation. Mr. Booth responded that Starbuck's will be open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. Mr. Booth asked for approval to move the menu board further northeast which allows better stacking of vehicles while preparing orders for pick up. There was a consensus among the Planning Commission to add this proposal as an additional condition of approval. The Commission requested that the applicant submit a revised plan for presentation to the City Council. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2005 -007 C M ARCHITECTURE PA There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to recommend to the City Council that it approve Application No. 2005 -007, submitted C. M. Architecture, PA on behalf of Magnum Development Company, for site and building plan approval to redevelop the old Kentucky Fried Chicken site at 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard into a Starbuck's Coffee Shop subject to the following conditions: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the building official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of site improvements. 4 -14 -05 Page 4 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas as directed by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current specifications and details. 11. The plans shall be modified prior to City Council consideration to show the relocation of the order board to the east of its current location to allow additional stacking space at the pick -up window. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Lund, Rahn, Reem and Roche. The motion passed unanimous The Council will consider the application at its April 25, 2005 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Rahn asked whether or not the city ordinances address casinos. Mr. Warren responded that City Ordinances do not address casinos and if one were proposed, it would require an ordinance amendment. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. 4 -14 -05 Page 5 Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass 4 -14 -05 Page 6 City Council Agenda Item No. 10a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association has presented to the City a donation of $24,500 and has designated it be used for replacement of Fire Engine 6 that is due for replacement in 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the donation and commends the Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association for its civic efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. Acknowledges the donation with gratitude. 2. Appropriates the donation to the corresponding activity budget. Anri125. 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. lOb City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: 3/15/05 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Service�j� SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brookly Center Women's Club in Support of the Summer Playground Program The Brooklyn Center Women's Club has presented to the City a donation of two hundred dollars. ($200.00) They have designated that it be used to support the Summer Playground Program. The summer playground program provides summer activities at neighborhood parks for Brooklyn Center youth. Staff recommends acceptance of this generous donation and asks that it be coded to the corresponding activity budget. 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.cityolbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER WOMEN'S CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMER PLAYGROUND PROGRAM WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center Women's Club has presented to the City a donation of two hundred dollars ($200) and has designated it be used to support the Summer Playground Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the donation and commends the Brooklyn Center Women's Club for its civic efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. Acknowledges the donation with gratitude. 2. Appropriates the donation to the corresponding activity budget. Avril 25.2005 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. BROOKLYN CENTER WOMEN'S CLUB '910 915 7540 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 3342424W f Date �,5 r t' `J Pay to the Order of F�e7��t�GL/.•JP �:�Ci %1JCL C' V i ,1 E Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 wellsfargo.com Memo ��l „Jc2.�i`►� i:091000019i:334 24 2419311' 07540 L City Council Agenda Item No. 10c There are no materials for this item. City Council Agenda Item No. 10d MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: April 18, 2005 SUBJECT: Opportunity Site Public Hearing Notice On April 12, 2005 the Brooklyn Center Opportunity Site Task Force held its first public hearing on the work they have accomplished to date. At the meeting several people made reference to the lack of notice they had received about the meeting or the project its self. The point of the meeting was in fact to introduce residents, affected property owners and lease holders of the purpose of the task force as well as the work performed to date. It was also to take public comment on the project and the directions taken at this point in time. Within the boundaries of the "Opportunity Site" there are fifteen (15) parcels. A letter was mailed on March 10 th informing each property owner of the general purpose of the task force and the time and location for the three (3) scheduled public hearings was sent to the address of record for property tax statements. The letter (see attached) also provided my name along with a phone number and email address to contact me if they had additional questions. In addition, there are forty (40) leasehold interests within the "Opportunity Site The leaseholders are made up of corporate owned entities, franchise owners and privately held business. Since we do not receive copies of the individual leases to determine the most appropriate party to notify about the activities of the task force, the same letter sent to the property owners was sent to the site manager. The site managers are our only viable means of making contact with these different businesses. The first two (2) people to speak at the public hearing raised the issue of their lack of notice. The first individual was Mr. Scott Powell. Scott Powell is the son of Oran and Elizabeth Powell the owners of record of the Brookdale Ford property. The car dealership is owned by Mr. Tom Grossman. Mr. and Mrs. Oran Powell reside in Excelsior. As the owners of the Brookdale Ford property, Mr. and Mrs. Oran Powell along with their attorney, Bruce Malkerson are and continue to be the recipients of all notices relative to the acquisition of their property and the task force public hearings. Last December, the EDA authorized the acquisition of the Brookdale Ford site and the Brookdale Square site. Since January, the EDA through its attorney has been in discussion with the Powell's attorneys. Mr. Scott Powell's assertion at the task force public hearing relative to the receipt of notice is incorrect. The second individual to speak was Mr. James Frank, the owner of the Perkins. The Perkins site is owned by ERETA LLC in St. Louis Park. In this case notice went to the site manager and obviously Mr. Frank was informed about the meeting. I have since spoken with Mr. Frank. He indicated to me that they have been and continue to consider the relocation their restaurant. Further, the owners of the property have been actively marketing the site and would like to sell the property to the EDA for this project. Mr. Frank had no issue with the notice that he expressed to me during our conversation. Finally, the issue was raised that Target had not received notice. Earlier in the day I received a phone call from a woman in the real estate department of Target asking about the meeting that evening. She had been informed about the meeting by a former Councilmember with whom she was acquainted. I reviewed the topics to be covered and the impact that they potentially had for Target with her. She seemed to be comfortable with my response to her questions. When the issue of Target's notice was raised during the meeting, the site manager for Target responded. The site Manager for Target stated that in fact she had received direct notice of the meeting as well as the corporate office. Again, notice was sent to the address of record for the Target Corporation. I would like point out that this is the beginning of a process. The businesses and property owners have been notified and are aware of the schedule as they were when the Calthorpe study was undertaken. The questions /concerns that have been expressed by the property owners and businesses are typical at this point of the process. They will understandably want to have specific information relative to the redevelopment and its impact upon them. They will want to know when the redevelopment will occur, will they have to move, can they remain in the project area, what costs will they be subjected to and so forth. They will want specific information so that they can adequately plan for the impacts of the redevelopment however that level of detail will not be available until we are much further along in the process of planning, establishing development criteria, acquisition, and selection of a developer(s). The impacted groups (businesses and property owners) will be kept informed as to the progress of the task force and when specific information impacting them is determined it will be made available to them. The minutes and all materials reviewed by the task force are placed in the City's web site the following day. March 10, 2005 Manager Target 6100 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 To Whom It May Concern: This is an informational letter regarding a planning study the City Economic Development Authority (EDA) is undertaking. The purpose of the study is to create planning and design guidelines to be used in the development of a Town Center in the City of Brooklyn Center. The City has retained the professional services of Damon Farber Associates to work with the City Council, a citizen's task force and city staff to develop a comprehensive guide plan for the creation of the Town Center. Damon Farber Associates is a Minneapolis planning and urban design firm that has worked on numerous urban design projects in the Twin Cities area, including the Shoppes at Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove and the Excelsior Grand redevelopment in St. Louis Park. The project study area will focus on an approximately 90 acre area bounded by 57' Avenue on the south, Summit Drive on the north, Highway 100 on the east and Shingle Creek Parkway on the west. Damon Farber Associates will provide the planning and design expertise to assist the City in creating a plan for the future of this area. Upon completion of the citizen task force work on the project, public meetings will be held to allow residents, business and property owners to provide comments on the study. The public meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers at Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, on; Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. March 10, 2005 Opportunity Site Page 2 Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance of the meeting. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. If you have any questions about the study process or objectives, please contact me directly at 763 -569 -3300, by email at bhoffinanna..ci.brooklvn- center.mn.us or stopping in at the Brooklyn Center City Hall, Community Development Department, which is located on the upper level of City Hall. Sincerely, Brad Hoffinan Community Development Director City Council Agenda Item No. 10e City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works V SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, Lions Park South Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements Bids for the Lions Park South Area Neighborhood Street Utility Improvements contract were received and opened on April 19, 2005. The bidding results are tabulated as follows: Bidder Base Bid Amount as Submitted Corrected Total Arcon Construction Co. 2,565,408.58 S.J. Louis Construction 2,643,686.89 Three Rivers Construction 2,835,717.39 S.R. Weidema, Inc. 2,902,743.71 Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. 3,108,749.95 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 3,221,879.06 3,231,874.76 Northdale Construction Co. 3,267,757.13 The project bid documents include alternate bid items for street improvements along Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive as discussed at the April 11, 2005 City Council meeting. The bidding results for street improvements as outlined in the engineering report for Fremont. Avenue and Lilac Drive are tabulated as follows: Bidder Alternate Bid Amount as Submitted Corrected Total Arcon Construction Co. 48,179.11 S.J. Louis Construction 50,965.80 Three Rivers Construction 57,510.31 57,517.71 S.R. Weidema, Inc. 60,861.90 Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. 57,330.20 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 60,581.54 60,580.64 Northdale Construction Co. 65,053.97 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 Award of Base Bid Items Of the seven O (7) bids received, the lowest base bid of 2,565,408.58 was submitted by Accon Construction Company, Inc. of Harris, Minnesota. The engineer's estimate for the base bid contract items was $2,932,785.35. While the average of the seven base bids is consistent with the engineer's estimate, the lowest base bid is approximately 12 percent below the estimate. Staff believes that this differential in base bid prices is due to the current competitive bidding environment and the City's ability to award this project earlier in the construction season. Alternate Bid Items Schedule B The staff report for street improvements requested by Lang Nelson included an estimated construction cost for constructing a three -way intersection for Lilac Drive, Fremont Avenue and 62" Avenue. The staff report indicated an estimated construction cost of $50,800 plus approximately $9,000 in Xcel Energy charges for relocation of a power pole. The lowest bid amount for construction of these improvements is $48,179.11. Bids were consistent with the project estimates presented to the Council The public meeting to consider street improvements along Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive is not scheduled to occur until mid May 2005. Therefore, City staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for the base bid items only. The City could negotiate a change order to add the alternate bid items back into the contract after the City Council determines the final course of action for the proposed improvements to Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive. Inclusion of the alternate bid items at this time would not change which contractor is the lowest responsible bidder. Recommended Action Attached for considerations is a City Council resolution accepting the base bid items only and awarding the Lions Park South Area Neighborhood Street Utility Improvements contract to Arcon Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of 2,565,408.58. 1 Page 1 of 1 Todd Blomstrom G om: Todd Blomstrom Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:20 PM To: 'Greg Bronk' Subject: RE: Fremont Avenue Street Improvements This item has been rescheduled for April 11, 2005 as per your request. From: Greg Bronk [mailto:GREG @lanel.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:54 AM To: Todd Blomstrom Subject: Fremont Avenue Street Improvements Todd, Please consider this our formal request to delay the council action and meeting two more weeks. I understand this delay may cause increase expense and construction delay. As I mentioned to you Frank Lang must be able to attend the meeting. Please confirm back to me via email or phone our request has been granted. Thank you eg Bronk W el Financial Group 1 Excelsior Blvd. St Louis Park, MN 55416 952 920 5338 greg @lanel.com 4/21/2005 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, LIONS PARK SOUTH AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer on the 19' day of April, 2005. Said base bids were as follows: Bidder Base Bid Amount as Submitted Corrected Total Arcon Construction Co. 2,565,40 &.58 S.J. Louis Construction 2,643,686.89 Three Rivers Construction 2,835,717.39 S.R. Weidema, Inc. 2,902,743.71 Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. 3,108,749.95 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 3,221,879.06 3,231,874.76 Northdale Construction Co. 3,267,757.13 WHEREAS, bid documents for Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, included alternate bid items listed under Schedule B for potential construction of improvements to Lilac Drive and Fremont Avenue as shown on the project plans. Said alternate bids were as follows: Bidder Alternate Bid Amount as Submitted Corrected Total Arcon Construction Co. 48,179.11 S.J. Louis Construction 50,965.80 Three Rivers Construction 57,510.31 57,517.71 S.R. Weidema, Inc. 60,861.90 Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. 57,330.20 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 60,581.54 60,580.64 Northdale Construction Co. 65,053.97 WHEREAS due to schedule delays b the applicant of said improvements included Y Y pp p in the alternate bids listed in Schedule B of the bid documents, the City must decline the award of alternate bid items as part the construction contract; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, it appears that Arcon Construction Company, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder as determined by consideration of base bid items only. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Arcon Construction Company, Inc. of Harris, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project Nos. 2005 -01, 02, 03, and 04, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows: COSTS Engineer's Estimate As Amended Per Low Bid Contract 2,932,785.35 2,565,408.58 Contingency (10 293278.54 256.540.86 Subtotal Construction Cost 3,226,063.89 2,821,949.44 Admin/LegallEngr. 265,000.00 265,000.00 Reforestation 27,000.00 27,000.00 Street Lights 78.500.00 78.500.00 Total Estimated Project Cost 3,596,563.89 3,192,449.44 REVENUES Street Assessment 553,655.00 553,655.00 Storm Drainage Assessment 187,694.00 187,694.00 Water Utility Fund 672,014.77 629,573.65 Sanitary Sewer Utility 635,038.98 596,513.19 Storm Drainage Utility Fund 425,323.97 349,351.59 Street Construction Fund 1,069,337.17 822,162.02 Street Light Utility 53.500.00 53.500.00 Total Estimated Revenue 3,596,563.89 3,192,449.44 i RESOLUTION NO. 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. 10f There are no materials for this item. City Council Agenda Item No. lOg Page 1 of 3 Michael McCauley From: Diane Niesen Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:35 AM To: Michael McCauley Subject: RE: #10c: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding Proposal Mike, Please include this message in tonight's City Council packet. Thank you. To: Brooklyn Center Mayor and Council Members From: Council Member Niesen Date: April 25, 2005 Subject: Recent CIP Funding Proposal Letter from Shingle Creek Watershed Management Organization SCWMO) Mayor and fellow Council Members: I attended the SCWMO monthly April meeting. Several items follow: 1. In response to my question, a SCWMO attendee stated that the intent of SCWMO's letter BC received did include a recommendation that cities' "special assess" lakefront and streamside properties as "benefiting properties" for water improvement costs. 2. In response to my question, the present Chair of SCWMO acknowledged that SCWMO had no riahts in the area of shaoina cities' tax calculations for its residents. in response to my question as to why, then, if SCWMO had no such rights, that they included any recommendation for tax assessment formulae in their letter, no answer was received. It was just reiterated that SCWMO had no such rights or authority of taxation. 3. Several SCWMO Commissioners supported my position against various provisions of SCWMO's letter, including BC's, and expressed doubt that their taxpayers could afford to shoulder water improvement costs as proposed. 4. Given BC's City Manager's statement below (to Ms. Johnson), it follows that SCWMO not be given the impression that BC would be inclined to accept any suggestion for taxing its residents for water quality improvement efforts. This should be so stated in any BC- to -SCWMO correspondence regarding their new funding proposal for CIPs. 5. Given BC's City Manager statement below, that information should be in writing so that the recommendations will be so carried out as told to City Council, and not dependent on the opinions or interpretations of whomever is in office (City staff or Council). SCWMO stated at their April 2005 meeting that they have no authority nor interest in how cities would assess their citizenry for water improvement Cl Ps. Therefore, BC's correspondence to SCWMO could include something such as: 'BC accepts SCWMO's acknowledgment stated at their April 2005 meeting that SCWMO has no authority in the area of formulating tax assessments for individual cities' taxpayers. Therefore, BC would proceed on its own to assess accepted CIP costs to its citizenry. It has been recommended and accepted by the BC City Council that any such assessments would involve a recovery of costs via BC's StormWater Utility, the Source of funds for any CIP projects. The $10 per household, per year, statement should also be clearly included, vs. per capita, which is per person. That way, any possible interpretation of a $10 costs per familv member in any given household /other would be avoided, and therefore further promote fairness and transparency. 6. If the BC Council so interprets and agrees, it should be clearly stated that in no case will BC taxpayers 04/25/2005 Page 2 of 3 accept 75 of total CIP project costs. Respectfully yours, Council Member Diane Niesen From: Michael McCauley Sent: Mon 04/11/05 9 :40 AM To: 'Uptown Lawn &Snow' Cc: BC City Council Subject: RE: #10c: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding Proposal Dear Ms. Johnson, I do not believe that the City Council is inclined to specially assess lake shore property owners should the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission undertake a proposed capital improvement plan. If this goes forward, the Watershed Commission would pass along costs to impacted cities. It is up to the cities to determine the source of funds to pay each city's allocated share of the project costs. Staff has recommended to the City Council, should this go forward, that the Stormwater Utility be the source of funds for any projects. Michael McCauley From: Uptown Lawn Snow [mailto:uptownls @msn.com] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:59 AM To: Michael McCauley; Myrna Kragness; Kay Lasman; Kathleen Carmody; Mary O'Connor; twiniake@coollist.com Subject: #10c: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding Proposal Dear Council Members: My name is Kelly Johnson, my husband Todd Johnson and I live on Upper Twin Lake at 5225 E Twin Lake Blvd. We understand that you are considering how to fund future water improvement projects in our area. It is my understanding that under the proposal that you are considering there is a heavy emphasis on the property owners surrounding a water way to contribute to the funding of these water quality improvement projects. As a property owner I understand that we do benefit from water improvement projects, as well as our immediate community that uses the lakes through public access, increased property values, and many many health and environmental benefits that make our city attractive to future residents and commercial developers. It seems a fair way for all of us to be apart of the solution is to contribute to the clean up and implementations of ways to prevent current and future pollution of the lakes from storm water run off, phosphorus lawn fertilizers, and just plain garbage (I.e. cigarette butts, glass, wrappers, etc.) that washes by the tons into the lake and water ways from the streets after a storm. In short, I think that it is important that 1) a reasonable cap or maximum limit be put on the amount an individual home owner is responsible for as well as 2) a rule that all homeowners be notified of the impending additional tax. These are important issues that all in our city and surrounding communities can benefit from not just the homeowners who are on the lake. There are many ways to figure a maximum the fairest seems to be a percentage of the tax assessed 04/25/2005 Page 3 of 3 property value. A reasonable percentage may be 0.5% to 0.75% of the value each year. I'm sorry I can't make it to the meeting, tonight. Thank you for listening to me, Kelly Johnson 5225 E Twin Lake Blvd Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 763 -592 -5296 04/25/2005 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers ody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: April. 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Watershed Agenda Item The Council directed that the watershed capital improvement proposal be placed on the April 25, 2005, agenda. For your convenience the April 11, 2005, materials are included in the packet. 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 OMT City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kra ness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor Y g Y From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: April 7, 2005 Re: Revised Materials Regarding Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal Attached are the materials from the March 14 City Council meeting, the City of Plymouth's response to the Watershed, and a Revised Draft Letter to the Watershed and Draft Alternative. The Revised Draft Letter incorporates, in the underlined material, comments received from Council Member Lasman. These are the only comments received since the Council tabled the item for additional comments. The Revised Draft Letter to the Watershed is still set out in separate numbered statements to facilitate City Council review. The Council may select for inclusion, exclusion, or modification the various individual points. The Draft letter would support a program of major projects with some suggested limitations on expenditure levels, City input on projects, and a goal of insuring that projects are significant within the context of the Watershed. (This is as opposed to a project that is primarily related to only one City or is benefiting new development. The proposed clause 7 would restrict these projects to existing waterways etc. to avoid multi city funding of new stormwater facilities required for new developments.) The Draft Alternate takes the opposite view and would not support the Watershed Commission's proposal. 301 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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org brooklyncenter.org Page 1 of 1 Michael McCauley From: Kay Lasman Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:48 PM To: Michael McCauley As requested at the meeting, the only changes I would like to see in the draft letter to the watershed commission is a cap on the amount and a sunset or scheduled time for re- evaluation. Thanks. 04/07/2005 REVISED 4 -7 -2005 DRAFT LETTER TO WATERSHED The Brooklyn Center City Council supports the concept of undertaking significant capital projects that will benefit the Watershed as a whole. The proposed funding to support those capital projects is generally appropriate in concept. The funding mechanisms should be refined and reduced to specific formulae with readily applied definitions of benefiting and contributing cities. Consideration should be given to providing that: 1. Projects must be of significance beyond the boundaries of the City in which the project is located in the case of a project wholly contained within one city. 2. The funding levels are kept in the general amounts set forth in the Watershed proposal. 3. Cities be allowed to comment on proposed capital improvement plans 4. Capital Improvement Plans have a 5 year horizon and that preliminary capital improvement plans be developed with a 10 year horizon. 5. Any project added to the next iteration of a 5 year plan must have been identified in the previous year's 10 year preliminary capital improvement plan. 6. The City within which an improvement project is located shall be afforded the option of being responsible for the design and administration of the construction project with funding from the Watershed or requesting that the Watershed be responsible for the design and administration of the project's construction. 7. Any project included in the plan must be located in and improving an existing waterway, creek, lake, wetland, or stormwater structure. 8. There should be a can on the amount an individual citv would be required to pay. An example of a potential mechanism for canning the fiscal burden on a city could be:No plan should result in a City being required to provide funding for projects in any consecutive 5 year rolling period that exceeds a cumulative total of $10.00 per capita in such 5 year period without the concurrence of that City's City Council by Resolution 9. There should be a scheduled sunset or re- evaluation of the capital proiect proeram and funding included in anv proaram adopted. 10. The City a. Supports the proposed ad valorem tax for the Watershed's portion of the CIP costs Or b. Does not support the proposed ad valorem tax for the Watershed's portion of the CIP costs Draft Alternate The Brooklyn Center City Council does not support the proposed undertaking to have the Watershed impose an ad valorem tax and to assess the cost of capital projects against cities in the Watershed. The City prefers the current practice of requiring cooperative agreements among cities wishing to construct projects benefiting more than one city. City of Brooklyn Center A .Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members rmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: March 24, 2005 Re: Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal Attached are the materials from the March 14 City Council meeting, the City of Plymouth's response to the Watershed, and a Draft Letter to the Watershed and Draft Alternative. The Draft Letter to the Watershed is set out in separate numbered statements to facilitate City Council review. The Council may select for inclusion, exclusion, or modification the various individual points. The Draft letter would support a program of major projects with some suggested limitations on expenditure levels, City input on projects, and a goal of insuring that projects are significant within the context of the Watershed. (This is as opposed to a project that is primarily related to only one City or is benefiting new development. The proposed clause 7 would restrict these projects to existing waterways etc. to avoid multi -city funding of new stormwater facilities required for new developments.) The Draft Alternate takes the opposite view and would not support the Watershed Commission's proposal. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCaul 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 potential to undertake projects that P g 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. 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 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: 1. 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 policy2.doc February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 2 of 7 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. 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. Tile 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 strearrnside 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 Sharine Poliev 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 c $500 25% watershed; 25% direct lakeshor 5% in irect lakeshore (Ryan); 50% contributing watershed City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share Brooklyn Center 1 $16,138 1 $97,225 Brooklyn Park $31,275 1 $100,800 Crystal I $11,000 I $97,850 1 Maple Grove I $21,988 I 1 Minneapolis 1 $8,513 I $4,750 New Hope 1 $8,960 1 $29,925 1 Osseo 1 $1,688 I 1 Plymouth $18,688 1 Robbinsdale 1 $6,763 1 $44,450 TOTAL I $125,000 I $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 Brooklyn Center I $16,138 1 $33,750 Brooklyn Park 1 $31,275 1 $190,500 Crystal $11,000 1 $23,250 Maple Grove 1 $21,988 1 $46,250 Minneapolis $8,513 1 $15,000 New Hope $8,960 $19,000 Osseo 1 $1,688 1 $2,250 Plymouth 1 $18,688 $39,500 Robbinsdale 1 $6,763 1 $5,500 TOTAL 1 $125,000 $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 $12,910 Brooklyn Park 1 $25,020 Crystal 1 $8,800 Maple Grove 1 $17,590 Minneapolis $6,810 New Hope $7,160 I 1 Osseo $1,350 Plymouth 1 $14,950 I Robbinsdale $5,410 1 $300,000 TOTAL I $100,000 1 $300,000 February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 5 of 7 What are the Commissions proposing? That the Commissions' Implementation Plan and CIP 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: I 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/downstrearn 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 OF PLYMOUTR March 14, 2005 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mayor and City Council: I wanted to thank your city for participating in the meeting held at the Plymouth Creek Center in November to discuss future capital projects and funding scenarios relating to the Shingle Creek Watershed. The City of Plymouth is very appreciative of the subsequent efforts of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and the member cities in developing a proposed cost sharing policy. On March 8, 2005 the Plymouth City Council considered the Commission's proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Cost Sharing Policy. I am forwarding the City of Plymouth's comments on the policy to you so your city is aware of Plymouth's position as the proposed policy is considered. The City supports balancing watershed -wide benefit with more direct benefit which the policy seems to do. The only revision requested by Plymouth is to use contributing flow to determine the 50 proposed to be apportioned based on contributing area. The flow rate is a more direct measure of the contribution to the problem being addressed and provides incentive /reward for storm water management measures taken upstream such as limiting impervious surface and providing ponding. I hope this is of assistance in your City Council's deliberations. Sincerely, Ginny Black Plymouth City Council PLYMOUTH Adding Quality to Life 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000 PAINTEC OM RECYCLEL PAPER www.b.plymouth.mn.us 1 CITY OF PLYMOUT4 March 11, 2005 Mark Hanson, Chair Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Hanson: On March 8, 2005 the Plymouth City Council considered Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission's SCWMC) proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Cost Sharing Policy. The City of Plymouth recognizes and appreciates that the SCWMC has gone to great effort to develop a CIP Cost Sharing Policy that is fair and equitable. The City also appreciates the opportunity to participate in the process and provide our input on the policy. The City supports balancing watershed -wide benefit with more direct benefit. The City believes this is a fairer method of paying for capital projects then one based solely on either property values as would the ad valorem tax, or based on a combination of area and tax capacity as the overall operating budget is funded. The proposed Cost Sharing Policy does better at balancing the benefits then other scenarios we have seen. We support the policy as proposed with one reservation. The City of Plymouth requests that contributing flow be used to determine the 50% of project funding that is proposed to be apportioned based on contributing area. We believe the flow rate is a more direct measure of the contribution to the problem being addressed by a project and provides incentive /reward for stone water management measures taken upstream such as limiting impervious surface and providing ponding. Again thank you for your efforts developing the Cost Sharing Policy and including the member cities in the process. We look forward to working with the SCWMC to improve the water resources of the watershed. Sincerely, Laurie Ahrens, City Manager PLYMOUTH Adding Quality to LVe 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000 ®PAI ED OltPEDr�iEDI -EP WW mus