Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 02-26 CCP Regular Session AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 26, 2001 6:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM B 1. City Council discussion of agenda items and questions 2. Legislation for Transit Hub funding 3. Draft City Council Retreat report 4. Concept Plans for Civic Center Project 5. Miscellaneous 6. Adjourn City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Lasman, Nelson, and Peppe From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: February 21, 2001 Re: Legislation for Transit Hub Funding Rep. Hilstrom is working to see if funding can be included in the bonding bill for a Brooklyn Center Transit Hub so that money would be available to implement plans that may be developed in the Smart Growth Study. At the present time, Metropolitan Transit has only about $1 Million in available funds. This would be insufficient to implement a viable transit hub development. Rep. Hilstrom would like to City Council support for her initiative. I I 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 NE11 0 COMPANY January 30, 2001 Mr. Michael J. McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mike: Enclosed is a draft of the post- workshop report from the City Council Workshop conducted on January 23, 2001. Since this workshop basically focused on "fine tuning" Council performance and implementation of the City's 2001 goals, the attached report is rather short. However, please review it and let me or my assistant, Sharon Wallin 303 - 235 -0823, know of any specific changes you desire before submission of this report to the City Council. As you move toward establishing the orientation for the newly - elected City Council member in May, let me know of any materials that you would like to use that I could provide for inclusion in the orientation that you will conduct. Kay Lasman suggested you may want to use the Westwood Case video tape. If that desire remains, I would be happy to provide a copy to you for your use. I look forward to working with you again in August because it is always a pleasure to work with the outstanding City Council and management team of Brooklyn Center. Sincerely, Carl H. Neu, Jr. CHN /sw Enclosure Phone: 303 /986 -8487 Fax: 3031986 -0223 E -mail: carineu @mindspring.com The Center for the Future of Local Governance TM Website: www.cadneu.com 8169 West Baker Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80227 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 36308 Lakewood, Colorado 80236 NE11 0 COMPANY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 23, 2001 SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY PARTICIPANTS Prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr. January 24, 2001 0 Neu and Company and the Center for the Future of Local GovernanceTM, 2001 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 23, 2001 SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE PARTICIPANTS Prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr. January 24, 2001 I. INTRODUCTION On January 23, 2001, the members of the City Council, City Manager, and Assistant City Manager participated in a City Council Workshop. This workshop provided an opportunity for the participants to review the overall performance of the Council, the goals established for the year 2001, and the processes to be used for the annual goal- setting session set for August 11, 2001, and providing new Council- member orientation after the election on May 1 st to fill a vacancy on the Council. A copy of the Workshop Agenda and participant materials is attached as Appendix A. II. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE PARTICIPANTS A. General Team Building: Review of Council Performance and Relationships 1. Council Performance: effectiveness in addressing and resolving issues. Council members were asked to identify those areas where issues have been addressed and resolved effectively and those areas where attempts to address and resolve issues may have encountered obstacles or seem to be floundering. 1 Items Addressed and Resolved Issues Where Obstacles or Effectivelv Frustrations were Encountered • Big picture goals • Brookdale established,communicated, and being achieved • Citizen concerns seem to Old Police Department/ be moving away from big Community Center issue items toward smaller issues and concerns indicating that citizen confidence is growing because Council is seen to be addressing big issues • Citizen satisfaction seems 69th and Brooklyn to be on the increase with Boulevard fewer complaints being received and greater focus being given by the citizens to City projects • Overall, the City is seen to Redefining the dog be "working well' ordinance • Responding and listening to citizen input • Impact on staff time resulting from "smaller issues" • Long -term financial picture /framework • Appropriate staff alignments 2 • Review of Boards and Commissions in terms of making them more effective consistent with City needs and opportunities for citizen participation 2. Discussion pertaining to issues identified above that have not been addressed or resolved completely or have encountered certain obstacles. The following observations were made to some of the issues identified above that have encountered obstacles or have not been completed fully. a. Brookdale Essentially this is seen as the City being "locked in" to an agreement in which a number of the elements affecting the future of Brookdale are not under the City's direct control. Secondly, the City is seen not to have a long -term exit strategy relative to the Brookdale issue. b. Old Police Department/Community Center Basically, the factors are: • There is a fixed amount of money allocated by Council to deal with the remodeling of the old Police Department and Community Center. • There are a number of unknowns and what if's that will affect potential outcomes, designs, and choices. C. 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard The following factors were identified: • Until construction is done on the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard intersection, it is hard to address issues with high levels of confidence pertaining to land use and other factors that will occur in the area. 3 • It may be appropriate "to wait" until the Boulevard construction is done before addressing subsequent issues affecting the area. d. Redefining the dog ordinance The primary issue here seems to be two -fold: • Council's comfort levels with various options available to it • Establishing a definite number of animals permitted per household • Council needs to resolve this issue quickly. The other issues on the list were discussed briefly with no specific conclusions reached as to how the issue may be resolved more quickly. 3. Working Relationships Within Council Basically, the Council members were unanimous in their conclusion that working relationships within the Council are seen as being "good ". Factors that indicate relationships are going well include: • A definite lack of partisanship within the Council • The Council's commitment to civility • Council's focus on "big picture" items. A primary factor that could affect the working relationship in the future is the introduction of a new Council member who will be elected on May 1 to fill a vacancy. This item is not seen as a negative, but a realization that whenever a new member comes into the Council, there is a period of accommodation and establishing new working relationships among all five Council members. B. Review of 2001 Goals and Approaches to Implementation The City Manager reviewed briefly the 11 goals adopted by the City Council for the year 2001. It was concluded, generally, that the goals and implementation steps were appropriate. Additional comments were made relative to three goals: 4 1. Goal No. 1: The Council would like to have more proactive "monitoring" of developer performance relative to progress being made on Brookdale. It was recommended that this monitoring might consist of a monthly report outlining specific progress being made. 2. Goal No. 5: This goal deals with construction of the community center and city hall. Much of the discussion relative to this is outlined above in this report. 3. Goal No. 10: This goal focuses on traffic calming efforts to be carried out throughout the City. The City Manager indicated a need for more specific information from the Police Department so that measurable and reportable efforts and plans could be established by which the Council and community could evaluate improvements being achieved relative to the implementation of this goal. C. Discussion of Annual Goal- Setting Session An outline of the process that was used for establishing goals for the year 2001 was reviewed. Council concluded that the same format for establishing goals should be used at the August 11, 2001, goal- setting session. D. New Council Member Orientation Council members concluded that the policies and procedures established for providing information to Council member candidates and newly - elected Council members should be the same as used for Council elections conducted in November, 2000. E. District 286 Elementary School and Grand View Park The City Manager presented some conceptual ideas pertaining to how the City and the School District could work together to create constructive options beneficial to both jurisdictions. Council concluded that the Manager should explore these options with the District and report back as to what opportunities have been identified warranting future consideration by the City and the School District. 5 I APPENDIX A 6 I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 23, 2001 2:00 - 8:00 p.m. WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. General Team Building a. Approaches to issues as a Council i. How are we doing? ii. What would we like to be doing? 2. Review 2001 Goals and approaches to implementation a. Council roles in achieving b. Staff roles 3. Discussion of annual goal setting session a. Format from last year b. Any changes /additions 4. New Council Member orientation a. Guidelines for providing information to Council candidates b. New Council Member orientation C. Staff information to be assembled and provided to the new Council Member 5. District 286 elementary school and Grandview Park 6. Other issues 7 c�ryar 3 :CEN TER OO KLYN public Works Department MEMORANDUM Engineering TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager m Streets FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Work SUBJ: I- 94/694 Detention Ponds Parks North Memorial Site Pu blic DATE: February 26, 2001 Utilities Ha Central Jerry Pedlar of North Memorial called today regarding the potential pond on the Garage back half of the North Memorial site. Watershed North Memorial is in the p rocess of develop prelimina Management p p� g p ary lans to construct p an educational facility on the site now occupied by the south parking lot. He 1 expects that these p pans will be presented to the City for approval in the next 1 -3 years. i Fob -26 -01 10:49zn From- PUBLIC POLICY 6126637969 T -442 P.01/02 F -039 Qwest. 200 South Sth Street, Room 39 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FAX TRANSMMAL COVER SHEET ]DATE: 1 C No. O]' PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: ?fi SEND TO: PHONE: ORIGINATOR PHONE: (61.2) ?'?� FAX: (612) 663- ���•� RUSH! If you don't receive all pages, please call cwWna'tor at number above. • f l Fib -26 -01 10:49zm From- PUBLIC POLICY 612663 969 T -442 P. 02102 F -039 500 North Carlton ,;,, ,,. r. jF -' Maplewood, Iv N 55114 - - Offscc: 651730-1390 C2 we s t. George, Regarding the Brooklyn Center ordinance, #i - Page 5 Section 5, Subdivision 3- the; second paragraph states that existing facilities must be relocated to their assigned position in the'ROW if t currently don't reside where tta: Director has decided they should be. We will relocate when there is conflict with a new proposed city project such as sewer and water, road re- build, etc. 42 - Page 6, Section b, Subdivision 3- I oppose providing a "deposit" to cover unknoAn or potential costs. The permit fee is intended to cover incurred costs of managing the ROW. t 43 - Page 8, Section 8, Subdivision 1- Although most of our projects will be less than the one mile or three mile limitation that is referenced, my concern is how or why they could restrict construction to this limit. Hope this helps. Call if any questions. Denny city of 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway BROOKLYN Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 CENTER 763 -569 -3340 ■ Fax 763 -561 -0955 FAX COVER LETTER Date: February 26, 2001 To: Mr. George Blackwell From: Michael Krech Company: Qwest Department: Public Works Fax No.: (612) 663 -7969 No. of Pages: 2 Regarding the comments you sent to me relating to the amendment of Chapter 25 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinance regarding management of right of way. • Your memo said " #I— Page 6, Section 5, Subdivision 3 — the second paragraph states that existing facilities must be relocated to their assigned position in the ROW if they currently don't reside where the Director has decided they should be. We will relocate when there is a conflict with a new proposed city project such as sewer and water, road re- build, etc. " This is the text referred to: Subdivision 3. Standards for Construction or Installation. The reouirements and standards for facilitv construction or installation are contained in the General Reauirements as specified by the Director. The Director may assign or prohibit s pecific locations for facilities within the right -of -way. or anv_particular segment thereo All excavation. obstruction, or ot permits issued by the Director involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper location for the facility at issue. The D irector may denv a permit ap plication. as provided in Section 25 -1014, in the eve the proposed location of such facilities is n ot consistent with the location required by the Director. The Director may revoke a permit, as provided in Section 25 -101 in the event the facilities are installed in a location that is inconsistent with the location designated in the applicable permit. Anv registrant whose facilities were previously located in the right -of -wav in a position at variance with the locations established by the Director shall, no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area where its facilities are located, move that facility to its assigned position within the right -of -wav, unless this reauirement is waived by the Director for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic li fe of the facilities, public safety, customer service needs and h :�iship to the registrant. This provision is consistent with the Cities' right to assign a utility corridor. The intention of this provision is to manage to use of the right of way in an efficient manor while minimizing reconstruction costs due to existing and proposed utilities. This is not intended to be used in every street to create a standard placement of utilities throughout the city, or to be used ,.I, C0 ill lh n cssa Is 101 ltic 1ll;Cli iCii 11Sc 0 tilt.' PeFS011 bd 'tt 60111 It 'S lelll :11111 11111\' L lt:l l' O ft ! ", - -cht t w55 is strict \- 81t ilOt; -i; iC t,l C U1 1., t i l,'. 111: o 3l 1`` i_ j3i't ilt _�l ; arbitrarily, but to efficiently plan for any conflicts existing or foreseen. A constructive working relationship will minimize the impact on the City projects and other utility projects. • Your memo said V2— Page 6, Section 6, Subdivision 3 — I oppose providing a "deposit to cover unknown or potential costs. The permit fee is intended to cover incurred costs of managing the ROW." This is the text referred to: Subdivision 3. Deposit. The Director may reauire that a Permit application be accompanied by a deposit. in addition to the Permit Fee and Construction Performance Bond. in an amount established by the Director in order to offset anv Citv costs that exceed the amount covered by the Permit Fee. Such additional Citv costs may include. but are not limited to. inspection co_ sts for consultants or independent contractors. legal fees. and other out ofpocket expenses, degradation costs, or restoration costs. The Permit fee will cover City staff time spent in the. administration of the permit Process and in inspection activities. The Director may reauire an applicant to submit a single deposit in an amount intended to cover all Citv costs which the Director determines may be incurred during the subseauent twelve (12) month Period based on an applicant's construction and maior maintenance Plan filed in accordance with Section 25 -1005. The Director shall approve all expenses charged against the deposit. and the unused Portion thereof shall be returned to the applicant. The Director may periodically reauire that the deposit amount be replenished as expenses are charged against the deposit. The permit application shall further state that the applicant agrees to reimburse the Citv for anv Citv costs incurred by the Citv in excess of the amount of the d e p osi t . This provision allows the City to set the permit fees to an amount that is as equitable to each user as possible. For example, the City has set the permit fees to an amount that is sufficient for a typical permit but this amount may not be sufficient for a non - typical permit that requires much more administration and review, possibly more than City staff is able to complete without assistance. • Your memo said V3— Page 8, Section 8, Subdivision I —Although most of our projects will be less than the one mile or three mile limitation that is referenced, my concern is how or why they could restrict construction to this limit. " This is the text referred to: Subdivision 1. Limitation on Area. A right -of -way permit is valid only for the area of the right -of -way specified in the permit. which shall not exceed one (1) lineal mile of right- of -way. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. The total area for which a permittee shall be permitted at anv one time. Pursuant to multiple permits or Permit exte nsions, shall not exceed three (3) line miles o fright -of -wax The intent of this provision is to limit the scope of work of the right of way users to an amount that can be administered by City Staff. Even with assistance such as consulting services there is a level of City staff time required to administer permits. This provision should keep that requirement to an achievable limit. The City's Police Powers allow us to establish reasonable standards, and it is certainly reasonable to limit the amount of construction to an amount which can be reasonably administered. ti'olE'\-e received Ellis Infor11 ation Collin ?l "loll lit T1llS 111C'Sti1 lti (tii IIiC I(it'!l <Il Li:;t Ol'the lr'_;';il?i? to 1'llt lli !i'S of 1 iliCi" 1't :�c'li 1Jti7Cif' C:iflill a;iti ( ?: ;:l ,li .l ai :D_ i C.` i5 :1' ll..ih" Public Copy CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center February 26, 2001 AGENDA 1. Informal Open Forum With City Council - 6:45 p.m. - provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation - 7 p.m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting 4. Roll Call 5. Council Report 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. February 12, 2001 - Study Session 2. February 12, 2001 - Regular Session b. Licenses C. Approve Application (Exemption from Lawful Gambling License) — Raffle from the National Kidney Foundation of Minnesota, Inc. d. Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement to Lease Space on Water Tower #3 to XM Satellite Radio Inc. for the Purpose of Installing Digital FM Radio Antennas is CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 26, 2001 7. Public Hearings a. Improvement Project Nos. 2001 -01, 02, and 03, Garden City North Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements - Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Development of Plans and Specifications, Improvement Project Nos. 2001 -01, 02, and 03, Garden City North Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements *Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances Regarding Management of Right of Way -Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. is -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt ordinance. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Regarding Licensing of Rental Units *Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt ordinance. 8. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -002 Submitted by Harry S. Johnson Company, Inc. (for Medtronic, Inc.). Request for Preliminary Plat Approval to combine three contiguous parcels of land at 6700 thru 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway into a single parcel. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its February 15, 2001, meeting. *Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -002 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 26, 2001 b. Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -003 Submitted by Architectural Alliance (for Medtronic, Inc.). Request for Site and Building Plan Approval for a 9,974 sq. ft. addition to the building located at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its February 15, 2001, meeting. • Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve Planning Commission Application Nos. 2001 -003 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Approving the I- 94/694 Conceptual Plan •Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement for the Design of Improvement Project Nos. 2002 -01, 02, and 03, Southwest Area Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements and the France Avenue Relocation Project *Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. C. Report on Seizure of Barking Dogs • Requested Council Action: -Report and Council discussion. d. Mayoral Appointment of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission • Requested Council Action: - Motion to ratify Mayoral nomination. e. Metropolitan Council Request to Place 10 Units in Brooklyn Center • Requested Council Action: -Report only and Council discussion. f. Request for Heritage Festival Contribution • Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve request for contribution of $500 for Heritage Festival. 10. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 6a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CONFERENCE ROOM B CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION 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, Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Ed Nelson, and Bob Peppe. Also Present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Assistant City Manager Jane Chambers, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Council discussed several agenda items that included 8a, 9a, 9d, 9e, 9f, and 9h. It was the consensus of the Council that agenda item 9a, Proclamation Declaring We Care About Kids Month, should be revised to include past tense language due to the fact that the date of February 3, 2001, had passed. City Manager Michael McCauley asked what time the Council would like to have the New Council Member Orientation on May 7, 2001. It was the consensus of the Council that 6:00 p.m., before the Board of Equalization meeting, would be adequate and that if more time is needed to continue after the Board of Equalization meeting. AD HOC HIGHWAY 100 COMMITTEE Council discussed the request of Councilmember Nelson for staff participation in an Ad Hoc Highway 100 Committee. Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Lasman and Peppe were in consensus that there would be no staff participating in the Ad Hoc Highway 100 Committee since the Council previously made a decision. NORTHBROOK LIQUOR NEGOTIATIONS Mr. McCauley requested direction from the Council regarding the lease negotiations at the Northbrook Liquor store. It was the consensus of the Council that a one -year lease term would be adequate at this time and that if a one -year lease term were not acceptable to the landlord, the Council would accept the closing of the Northbrook Liquor store. 02/12/01 -1- DRAFT DISCUSS DATES FOR GOLF COURSE POND DEDICATION It was the consensus of the Council to hold a golf course pond dedication ceremony on April 20, 2001, at 7:30 a.m. or 7:45 a.m. DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RETREAT REPORT Mr. McCauley requested that the Council Members advise if there are any changes or additions to the draft City Council Retreat Report. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous items discussed. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the study session at 6:59 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 02/12/01 -2- 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 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY HALL 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Council continued from the study session into informal open forum at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Ed Nelson, and Bob Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Assistant City Manager Jane Chambers, Public Works Director Diane Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Dan Friedner from Welsh Companies and Don Griffen from Car Hop Auto Sales and Finance addressed the Council to discuss the possibility of Car Hop Auto Sales and Finance locating at 2105 57 Avenue North. Paul Oman, resident of Twin Lake area, addressed the Council to request that the Council evaluate the possibilities regarding the Highway 100 project. ADJOURN INFORMAL OPEN FORUM A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn informal open forum at 6:58 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Tim Johnson, Brookdale Covenant Church, 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 7:02 p.m. 02/12/01 -1- DRAFT 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Ed Nelson, and Bob Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Assistant City Manager Jane Chambers, Public Works Director Diane Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 5. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Peppe reported that he attended the DARE Graduation at Evergreen Elementary School on January 30, 2001, and the Highway 100 Council meeting on February 8, 2001. Councilmember Nelson reported that he attended the DARE Graduation at Brooklyn Center High School on February 1, 2001, the We Care About Kids event on February 3, 2001, the Year 2000 Celebration Committee meeting on February 6, 2001, and the Highway 100 Council meeting on February 8, 2001. He also reported that the Council attended the City Council Facilitated Retreat on January 23, 2001. Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Fun in the Park Day on January 23, 2001, the Year 2000 Celebration Committee meeting on January 6, 2001, a Lioness meeting on February 8, 2001, and the 90` Birthday Celebration on February 10, 2001. Mayor Kragness reported that there was a time capsule started at the 90' Birthday Celebration and • there was still some space if persons were interested in submitting something for the capsule that will be opened in 2011. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve the minutes from the January 22, 2001, study and regular sessions. 6b. LICENSES A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve the following list of licenses. Motion passed unanimously. 02/12/01 -2- DRAFT GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Duke's Mobil 6501 Humboldt Avenue North Osseo - Brooklyn Bus Company 4435 68"' Avenue North Qwest Communications 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway MECHANICAL Albers Mechanical Contractors Inc. 200 West Plato Boulevard, St. Paul Alliant Mechanical 3650 Kennebec Drive, Eagan Auto Garage Door and Fireplace 9210 Wyoming Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Dave's Appliance Heating and Air 160137" Avenue NE, Columbia Heights Faircon Service 1891 West County Road C, Roseville Flare Heating 9303 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley Guyer's Builder's Express 13405 15"' Avenue North, Plymouth Maple Grove Heating and A/C 401 County Road 81, Osseo Marsh Heating and A/C 6248 Lakeland Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Modern Heating and A/C 2318 First Street NE, Minneapolis Riccar Heating and A/C 2387 Commercial Boulevard NW, Andover River City Sheet Metal Inc. 9928 Bluebird Street NW, Coon Rapids Rouse Mechanical 1916 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope Royalton Heating and A/C 4120 85t" Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Wenzel Heating and A/C 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, Eagan • RENTAL Renewal: 3701 47"' Avenue North Donald Sobania 4806 Twin Lake Avenue Gregory Young Initial: 3613 47"' Avenue North Ronnie Franklin 5101 Eleanor Lane Allen and Carlene Potaczek 2741 Freeway Boulevard Motel 6 SIGN HANGER Crosstown Sign 10166 Central Avenue NE, Minneapolis Sign A Rama 829 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis Twin Cities Sign Images 17201 113`'' Avenue North, Osseo TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Duke's Mobil 6501 Humboldt Avenue North . 02/12/01 -3- DRAFT APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EXCLUDED RAFFLE FROM THE ORCHARD LANE PTA FOR AN EVENT TO BE HELD AT ORCHARD LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON MARCH 2, 2001 A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve application to conduct excluded raffle from the Orchard Lane PTA for an event to be held at Orchard Lane Elementary School on March 2, 2001. Motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE (RAFFLE APPLICATION) FROM NORTH HENNEPIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION FOR AN EVENT TO BE HELD AT THE EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER ON APRIL 20, 2001 A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve application for exemption from lawful gambling license (raffle application) from North Hennepin Community College Foundation for an event to be held at the Earle Brown Heritage Center on April 20, 2001. Motion passed unanimously. 6c. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY RESOLUTION NO. 2001-25 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 6d. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NOS. 2 AND 3, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000-01,02, AND 03, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS RESOLUTION NO. 2001-26 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 02/12/01 -4- DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NOS. 2 AND 3, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000-01,02, AND 03, CONTRACT 2000 -13, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATION FROM FINANCIAL COMMISSION REGARDING FUND BALANCE TARGETS AND POLICY AMENDMENT Financial Commissioner Mark Nemec presented background information regarding the recommendation of the Financial Commission to amend the policy to set the cash balance targets for the Water Fund at $1,000,000. The Financial Commission subcommittee considered a report from the Public Works Director Diane Spector regarding a catastrophic event. Ms. Spector's report indicated that a well would not be replaced in a catastrophic event and that the need for filters on the wells costing approximately $800,000 was more for a realistic catastrophic event. The cash balance target previously included a component of 15 percent of the next year's budget for operating cash. In light of the reduced catastrophic event, the subcommittee recommended increasing the operating cash component to 20 percent of the next year's budget that would decrease the Water Fund cash balance target from $1,650,000 to $1,000,000. Councilmember Nelson expressed thanks for all the work that the Financial Commission has 0 provided to the City Council. A motion by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to adopt Financial Commission's recommendation and amend policy to set the Water Fund target cash balance at $1,000,000. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE TH 252 SERVICE ROAD FROM 65 TO 66 AVENUE NORTH -THIS ITEM WAS FIRST READ ON JANUARY 8,2001; PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER ON JANUARY 17,2001; AND IS OFFERED THIS EVENING FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that this ordinance vacating the TH 252 Service Road from 65" to 66"' Avenue North is necessary and part of the redevelopment for TH 252. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. • 02/12/01 -5- DRAFT i No one wished to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -01 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING TH G HE TH 252 SERVICE ROAD FROM 65 TO 66 AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION S DERATION ITEMS 9a. PROCLAMATION DECLARING WE CARE ABOUT KIDS MONTH Councilmember Nelson discussed that he had suggested that the Proclamation be amended to read in past tense since the date had passed for an event to be held in regards to We Care About Kids. A motion by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adopt Proclamation Declaring We Care About Kids Month as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PENALTY SECTIONS OF THE CITY ORDINANCE OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO REFLECT THE CHANGES IN MINNESOTA STATUTES Mr. McCauley discussed that the Minnesota Legislature made a law effective that would allow cities to raise the maximum fines for violations of City Ordinances previously at $700 to $1,000. This ordinance amending the penalty sections would reflect the changes in Minnesota Statutes and raise the maximum fines for violations of City Ordinances previously at $700 to $1,000. Councilmember Lasman questioned if the increase had to be included in all ordinances. Mr. McCauley responded that it would be more orderly to have the same range of penalties, however the actual penalty is imposed by the court system, which reflects the varying levels of seriousness of individual violations. 02/12/01 -6- DRAFT i A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the first reading and set second reading and public hearing for March 21, 2001. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. NEW COUNCIL MEMBER ORIENTATION Mr. McCauley requested that the Council set May 7, 2000, 6:00 p.m. for an orientation of a new Council Member and to continue the orientation after the Board of Equalization meeting if needed. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to set May 7, 2001, 6:00 p.m. for the new Council Member orientation and to continue orientation after the Board of Equalization meeting if needed. Motion passed unanimously. 9d. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED USE OF 2001 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Mr. McCauley discussed that Hennepin County had notified the City that its share of the 2001 Urban Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds would be $242,294. This funding requires that one of the three objectives be met: benefiting low and moderate - income persons, preventing or eliminating slums and/or blight, and meeting urgent community needs. The City is proposing to undertake the activities of rehabilitation of private property and neighborhood public service projects. A public hearing on the housing and community development needs and the City's proposed use of the 2001 CDBG funds will be held on March 12, 2001. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-27 Councilmember Nelson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED USE OF 2001 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 9e. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY; AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER CODE SECTION 25 -1008, SUBD. 3, AND ADDING NEW SUBDIVISION 5 TO SECTION 25 -1006 Mr. McCauley discussed that this ordinance amendment relating to telecommunications antennas in the right of way would prohibit antennas in the right of way other than as minor attachments to existing utility poles. . 02/12/01 -7- DRAFT The public hearing on March 12, 2001, will be for the changes which would allow the Director to limit the height of any above ground facility and adds an addition that restricts antenna facilities in the right of way to mounting on existing structures. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve first reading and set second reading and public hearing for March 12, 2001. Motion passed unanimously. 9f. STAFF REPORT RE: I- 94/694 CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL Mr. McCauley discussed that the City Council will be asked to consider conceptual plan approval for the I- 94/694 project at its February 26, 2001, meeting and requested Public Works Director Diane Spector to outline the project for any questions that the Council may have regarding approval of this plan. Ms. Spector outlined the project that consists of the following: reconstruction of County Road 81 and Broadway bridges, reconstruction of the Hemlock Lane bridge and interchange, addition of a third lane from just west of Brooklyn Boulevard to Weaver Lake Road, and replacement of the pavement from approximately Dupont to Weaver Lake Road. Also a part of this project would be the addition of some miscellaneous auxiliary lanes, construction of several storm water detention ponds, construction of a small amount of new noise wall, and rehabilitation (painting and repair) of the existing noise wall. Work in the Brooklyn Center area would not begin until Spring 2003. As this project progresses many residents are concerned that Mn/DOT would acquire their homes to widen the freeway in Brooklyn Center. Mn/DOT has assured staff that all the roadway work will occur within the existing right of way. Ms. Spector discussed a noise study had been completed and that one area of new noise wall is suggested in the Brooklyn Center segment of the project, with no modifications other than painting and repairing to the remainder of the wall. Mn/DOT will be installing a new pavement as part of this project that has resulted in a 1 -2 dB reduction in pavement noise. Ms. Spector informed the Council that Mn/DOT is no longer interested in Orchard Lane Park as a site for a pond and continues to pursue the North Memorial ambulance facility site and a revised south site option. Plans for the pond design will not be approved at the preliminary plan approval for the proj ect since much more design work will be required. A design could possibly be ready this fall for the pond. Councilmember Nelson questioned if the ponds had to be on the highway side of the noise walls. Mr. McCauley discussed that maintenance is an issue for Mn/Dot if the ponds are not on the highway side. 02/12/01 -8- DRAFT • . Councilmember Peppe stated that he would be interested in the cost of sound wall sizes and that maybe the City could contact State Representatives to help with funding. Mr. McCauley will have staff pass this information to Mn/DOT. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to accept report. Motion passed unanimously. 9g. STAFF REPORT RE: HALIFAX TRAFFIC STUDY Mr. McCauley discussed that there has been considerable interest in eliminating cut through traffic on Halifax Drive. This issue was studied in 1998 in response to resident concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Halifax, particularly cut through traffic from Brooklyn Boulevard bypassing the traffic signal at 63` Avenue. Several options were considered and the results found that although cut through traffic was annoying to some residents, overall it was low volume and there was not a compelling traffic safety reason to make a physical change to Halifax Drive. A survey of affected residents was made and did not identify a consensus among property owners as to what, if anything should be done to Halifax Drive. Based on feedback from residents at a neighborhood meeting held in November 1999, and January 2001, a new survey was conducted to residents on Halifax Drive. The new survey included two options. One option was to do nothing and leave traffic flow as it does today. A second option was to construct a "right -out only" onto Brooklyn Boulevard from Halifax Drive. With the second option it will not be possible for anyone to turn right from Brooklyn ® Boulevard onto Halifax Drive. Mr. McCauley reported that there had been 17 responses from the second survey conducted that would prefer to have a "right -out only ". Five responses preferred to do nothing and leave the connection to Brooklyn Boulevard as it is today. Council discussed the style that would be used if constructed to a "right -out only ". Joel Doheny, 6321 Halifax Drive, addressed the Council to discuss that he believes the option of a "right -out only" would be an excellent option for the time being but that eventually he would like to see the area closed. Mayor Kragness informed Mr. Doheny that emergency and safety issues would be a reason for not closing the area. 9h. REPORT ON SNOWMOBILES Mr. McCauley reported signs were requested at Twin Lake Park to reduce the number of snowmobilers using Highway 100 right of way and the property at Beach Condominiums. These signs are in the process of being made and will be installed to help reduce snowmobile traffic. Council discussed the area, and if it would be enforced, who will be doing the enforcement. Mr. McCauley informed the Council that it would be the Sheriff s Department enforcing the area. is 02/12/01 -9- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to accept report. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 7:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 02/12/01 -10- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b 9jr City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk DATE: February 21, 2001 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 February 26, 2001. MECHANICAL Allied Fireside 2700 Fairview Avenue North, Roseville ® Blaine Heating and A/C 13562 Central Avenue NE, Anoka Centraire Heating and A/C 7402 Washington Avenue S, Eden Prairie Cronstom's Heating and A/C 6437 Goodrich Avenue, St. Louis Park Hansen Heating, Inc. 101142 nd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights Home Energy Center 15200 25 Avenue N, Plymouth The Maintenance Team, Inc. 5599 W 78 Street, Edina Metropolitan Mechanical Contr. 7340 Washington Avenue S, Eden Prairie P & H Services Co. 160167' Avenue North, Brooklyn Center Pete's Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Pierce Refrigeration 19202 d Avenue South, Anoka Quality Refrigeration 6237 Penn Avenue South, Richfield Ron's Mechanical 12011 Old Brick Yard Road, Shakopee Sabre Heating and A/C 14505 21 Avenue North, Plymouth Standard Heating and A/C 410 W Lake Street, Minneapolis Suburban Air Conditioning 8419 Center Drive, Fridley Thermex Corporation 3529 Raleigh Avenue South, St. Louis Park Total Comfort 12800 Highway 55, Plymouth Vogt Heating and A/C 3260 Gorham Avenue, St. Louis Park Yale, Inc. 9649 Girard Avenue South, 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 Page 2 City Council License Approval February 26, 2001 RENTAL Renewal: 6109 -11 -13 Beard Avenue North James and Bobbie Simons 5239 -41 Drew Avenue North William Washington 1525 Humboldt Place North Kwi -Ha Wong 1531 Humboldt Place North Kwi -Ha Wong 4714 Lakeview Avenue North Roland Scherber 5900 Washburn Avenue North John & Gail Lambert Initial: 3501 47`" Avenue North Norene Miller 5256 Twin Lake Boulevard James Clobes SIGN HANGER Lawrence Sign Co. 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul Suburban Lighting 6077 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Stillwater • City Council Agenda Item No. 6c BROOK �ROOK�YN c�� O YN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT W POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk Sharon Knutson FROM: Chief Joel Downer DATE: February 12, 2001 SUBJECT: Application (Exemption From Lawful Gambling License) - Raffle National Kidney Foundation Of Minnesota, Inc. On February 12, 2001, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Authorization for an Exemption from Lawful Gambling License from the National Kidney Foundation Of Minnesota, Inc. This application is for an event to be held at the Earle Brown Heritage Center on March 29, 2001. This application has been approved and returned to the National Kidney Foundation representative who will forward it to the State Gambling Control Board. I If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. V ef b of Police i i Gambling Control Board Fax:651- 659 -4075 Oct 11 '00 14:45 P.02 Minnesota Lawful Gambling Page t of 2 ar For LG220 - A pplication for Exempt permit Fee - $25 Fee Pad Use Un1y organization information Check No. Organization name Previous lawful gambling exemption number National Kidney Foundation of Minnesota, Inc. X27255 Street City State/Zip Code County 920 South 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Hennepin Name of chief executive officer (CEO) First name last name Daytime phone number of CEO Peggy McGrew 612- 337 -7300 Name of treasurer Daytime phone number of First name last name treasurer. Charles Crandall 612 - 337 -7300 :. Type of Nonprofit organization Check the box that best describes your organization:�� ❑ Fraternal ❑ Religious ❑ Veteran 2 , Other nonprofit organization Check the box that indicates the type of proof your organization attached to this application; iRS letter indicating income tax exempt status ❑ Certificate of Good Standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office _.` ❑ A charter showing you are an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization `- [] Proof previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board Gambling premises information Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place) Earle Brown Conference Center Address (do not use PO box) city StatelZip Code County 6155 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn City Minnesota 5543 Hennepin Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing) March 29, 2001 Cheek the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting: °- Ingo Raffles Paddlewheels *� II-Tab s 0 ipboards Equipment for these activities must be obtained from a licensed dis tributor. stnbuto r. This form will be made available in Your name and and your organization's the following: Board members. staff ofthe alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) name and address will be public information Board whose work assignment requires upon request. The information requested when received by the Board. AD the other that they have access to the information; on this form (and any attachments) will be information that you provide will be private the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; used by the Gambling Control Board data about you until the Board issues your the Minnesota Attorney General; the (Board) to determine your qualifications to permit. When the Board issues your Minnesota Commissioners of be involved in I2wful gambling activities in permit, all of the information that you have Administration, Finance, and Revenue; the Minnesota. You have th e right to refuse to provided to the Soard in the process of Minnesota Legislative Auditor, national and supply the information requested; however, applying foryour permitwill become pubic. international gambling regulatory agencies; if you refuse to supply this information, the if the Board does not issue you a permit, anyone pursuant to court order; other Board may not be able to determine your all the information you have provided in the individuals and agencies that are qualifications and, as a consequence, may process of applying for a permit remains specifically authorized by state or federal refuse to issue you a permit If you supply private, with the exception of your name law to have access to the information; the information requested, the Board will and your organization's name and address individuals and agencies for which law or be able to process your application, which will remain public. legal orderauthorizesa newuse or sharing Private data about you are available only to of information after this Notice was given; and anyone with your consent. Gambling Control Board Fax :651 -639 -4073 Oct 11 '00 1445 P.03 A lication for Exempt Permit - LG220 Page 2 of 2 PP p aroo Organization Name National Kidnev Foundation of Minnesota, Inc. Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment If the gambling premises is within city limits, the if the gambling premises is located in a township, both city must sign this application the county and township must sign this application. On behalf of the city, i acknowledge this application. On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application. Check the action that Check the action that the city is taking on this application. the county is taking on this application. The city approves the application with no The county approves the application with no waiting period, waiting period. ❑ The city approves the application with a 30 day Th county approves the application with a 30 day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a waiting period, and allows the Boars} to issue a permit after 30 days (60 days for a first class permit after 30 days. city). The city denies the application. The county denies the application. Print e of city �r o ry�'�, t�S `'� r TY? r Print name of county (Signature of city personnel receiving application} (Signature of county personnel receiving application) Tite Title �� �' P .n 1�_ Da I I Date C� 1�0'? / TOWNSHIP: • On behalf of the township, 1 acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. jA township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. Stat, sec. 349.213, subd. 2).] Print name of township (Signature of township official acknowledging application) Title Date 1 Chief Executive Officer's Signature The information provided in this ap 'cation is comp urate to the best of nowiedge. Chief executive officer's signature �—j Pe Grewi Di o 2 9 / Ol Name (please print) 99Y t r Date 1 Mail Application and Attachments At least 45 days prior to your scheduled activity date send: the completed application, If your application has not • a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and been acknowledged by the • a $25 application fee (make check payable to "State of Minnesota "). local unit of government or Application fees are not prorated, refundable, or transferable. has been denied, do not • Send to: Gambling Control Board send the application to the 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Gambling Control Board. Roseville, MN 55113 City Council Agenda Item No. 6d MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 2001 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Michael Krech, Public Works Specialist _`i tj ( r SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement to Lease Space on Water Tower #3 to XM Satellite Radio Inc. for the Purpose of Installing Digital FM Radio Antennas XM Satellite Radio Inc. has submitted an application to the City to place a digital radio antenna on water tower number three (Centerbrook Golf Course). The application was submitted along with the required $2,000 application fee. City staff, XM Satellite Radio Inc., KLM Inc. (the City's water tower consultant), and the City Attorney have developed a site lease agreement. City staff is currently finalizing review of XM Satellite Radio's construction plans. XM Satellite Radio Inc. will not be issued a building permit until staff approves the construction plans and a Site Lease agreement is executed, XM Satellite Radio Inc. submits a $3,000 inspection escrow fund and XM Satellite Radio Inc. or their contractor submits a restoration bond to cover construction activities. I recommend the City of Brooklyn Center authorize execution of a Site Lease agreement with XM Satellite Radio Inc. for the purpose of installing and maintaining a digital radio antenna on water tower number three. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO LEASE SPACE ON WATER TOWER #3 TO XM SATELLITE RADIO INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING DIGITAL FM RADIO ANTENNAS WHEREAS, XM Satellite Radio Inc., a Delaware corporation, has submitted to the City a request to lease space in and on City water tower number three, along with the required $2,000 application fee; and WHEREAS, as compensation for the use of City facilities, XM Satellite Radio Inc. agrees to pay annual lease payment of $17,624.84. The payment shall be prorated for the first year then annually increased by 5 percent for twenty years represented by one five year lease period with three five year renewals; and WHEREAS, XM Satellite Radio Inc., the City Attorney, KLM Inc. (the City's water tower consultant), and staff have negotiated a lease agreement which is consistent with the City's Policy Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: ® 1. The lease agreement between XM Satellite Radio Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center for the placing a digital radio antenna at water tower number three is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said lease agreement. 2. All lease payments collected from said lease shall be deposited into the Water Utility Fund. 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. i City Council Agenda Item No. 7a • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2001 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Howard, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Development of Plans and Specifications, Improvement Project Nos. 2001 -01, 02, and 03, Garden City North Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements Summary Explanation The proposed project includes roadway, storm drainage, and utility improvements for the Garden City North Neighborhood. The attached feasibility report includes maps showing the specific improvement locations. The project was previously established by the City Council on July 24, 2000, and two informational meetings have been conducted with residents and property owners since then. On January 22, 2001, the City Council received the feasibility report and scheduled a public hearing for February 26, 2001 to consider these improvements. The proposed improvements can generally be described as follows: replacement of the existing streets with new bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer installation, repair and replacement of existing sanitary sewer and water main facilities, and street light replacement. The attached Feasibility Report describes the project improvement costs and schedule in more detail. Assessments In accordance with City Council's policy regarding improvement projects in residential areas, proposed assessments have been made on a unit basis. The Council's 2001 residential rate for street construction is $2,290 per parcel and $750 per parcel for storm drainage improvements. Property zoned other than single family residential is assessed at a rate of $0.28/sf for street improvements and $0.14 /sf for storm drainage improvements. The public hearing will not consider the proposed assessments. If the Council approves the Improvement Projects, a separate assessment hearing would be scheduled for September 2001. All property owners in the area affected by the proposed improvements have been duly notified as required by law. Additional Issues Staff has received feedback from residents at two informational meetings and two resident . surveys. The informational meetings were generally positive in nature with the majority of questions and concern relating to specific construction issues. Excessive traffic speeds were expressed as a concern on most of the streets in the project area. Cut through traffic on Halifax Drive was a common concern at the neighborhood meetings. The issue of cut through traffic on Halifax Drive was studied in 1998 in response to resident concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Halifax, particularly cut - through traffic from Brooklyn Boulevard bypassing the traffic signal at 63r Avenue. Traffic counts taken on several occasions average out to a count of about 250 vehicles per day. An hourly count by lane of westbound vehicles (Brooklyn Boulevard onto Halifax) showed a maximum count of 22 vehicles per hour. Several options were considered including: closing off Halifax from Brooklyn Boulevard, posting a "No Right Turn" sign on Brooklyn Boulevard, and making a portion of Halifax Drive into a one way street. The results of the study found that although cut through traffic was annoying to some residents, overall it was low volume and there was not a compelling traffic safety reason to make a physical change to Halifax Drive. Radar surveys showed a small percent of traffic was indeed traveling in excess of 30 mph, but it did not exceed the typical percentage seen on residential streets. A survey of affected residents was made and did not identify a consensus among property owners as to what, if anything should be done to Halifax Drive. • Based on feedback from resident neighborhood meetings held in November and January, a new survey was distributed to residents on Halifax Drive. The new survey included two options. One option was to do nothing and leave traffic flow as it does today. A second option is to construct a "right -out only" onto Brooklyn Boulevard from Halifax Drive. With this option it will not be possible for anyone to turn right from Brooklyn Boulevard onto Halifax Drive. Survey results are summarized below. 5 Would prefer to do nothing and leave the connection to Brooklyn Boulevard as it is today. 16 Would prefer to have a "right -out only" as shown on the attached sketch. In addition one respondent preferred neither and two preferred either option. A map is attached showing the area surveyed and indicating the survey responses. Recommended Action It is recommended that Council receive a staff presentation. Following the presentation, the public hearing be opened, public comments taken, and then close the public hearing. Consider the Halifax options and consider the improvement project as a whole. A resolution ordering the improvements and authorizing development of the plans and specifications is provided for Council consideration. • HALIFAX SURVEY RESULTS o 0 to Ar 6 3 0 6324 6325 63 24 rr s�j f � /l' �� � 6318 6319 6318 __/ -, z" , 6309 6316 6315 6 ➢ 6312 :J;: 6315 rn 306 6,308 6309 o 6 63 0 6306 �,630 _Z01 6301 6300 - /'- 63 6300 6300 6301 63RD AVE. NO. DENOTES: "RIGHT TURN ONLY - 77 - DENOTES LEAVE AS I S Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2001 -01, 02, AND 03, GARDEN CITY NORTH STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on February 26, 2001 authorized consideration of street, storm drainage, and utility improvements in the area generally described as the "Garden City North," consisting of the following streets: All streets located within an area bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard, Xerxes Avenue, 63rd Avenue North, and I -94. The project also includes Halifax Drive between Brooklyn Boulevard and 63' Avenue, France Avenue between Halifax Drive and Grimes Avenue between Halifax Drive and 63' Avenue. The proposed project does not include improvements to Xerxes Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard, or 63rd Avenue North. 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 January 22, 2001 adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for Garden City North Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the - hearing was given and the hearing was held on February 26, 2001, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the February 26, 2001 hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Special Assessment Construction Fund, Local State Aid Fund, Water Utility Fund, Sanitary Sewer Fund, or Storm Drainage Utility 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 $1,100,000; and WHEREAS, City Staff, under the direction of the City Engineer are prepared to prepare plans and specifications for said project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project Nos. 2001 -01, 02 and 03, Garden City North Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, are hereby ordered. RESOLUTION NO. 2. The City Engineer is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement. 3. 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 successor 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 Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ENGINEERING: 569 -3340 FAX. 569 -3494 ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR • GARDEN CITY N ORTH NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2001 -01, 02 &03 JANUARY, 2001 I hereby certify that this feasibility report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Miniaesota� Reg. No. 23095 Todd Howard. P. E. City Engineer January 18, 2001 • Feasibility Report Garden City North Neighborhood Page 1 OVERVIEW (see Figure 1) These proposed projects include roadway and utility improvements for the Garden City North Neighborhood, more specifically all public streets as shown in Figure 1. The general improvement area consists of the following streets: All streets located within an area bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard, Xerxes Avenue, 63rd Avenue North, and I -94. The project also includes Halifax Drive between Brooklyn Boulevard and 63` Avenue, France Avenue between Halifax Drive and Grimes Avenue between Halifax Drive and 63` Avenue. The proposed project does not include improvements to Xerxes Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard, or 63rd Avenue North. Estimated costs for the new street improvements are included in a Cost and Funding Chart on the attached Figure 5. This report was prepared in accordance with previous direction of the City Council and that staff would conduct Public Information meetings. On November 15, 2000 and January 17, 2001, public information meetings were conducted. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS STREETS Improvement Project 2001 -01 (see Figure 1) All of the streets in the proposed project area are classified as local residential streets, originally constructed in conjunction with utility installations in the mid to late 1950's. All of the existing streets are very flat, and in most areas do not have concrete curb and gutter. Some street segments within the project area do have bituminous curb. On average, the streets are 30 feet wide, with a pavement thickness of 2.0 to 4.0 inches. These streets are aging and showing fatigue and distress, particularly along their unprotected edges. The City's Pavement Management Program indicates that it is no longer cost - effective to routinely maintain these streets (i.e., patch and sealcoat). Complete reconstruction is warranted. It is proposed to reconstruct these streets as two lane roadways measuring 30 feet in width with a structural capacity for the current volume and vehicle distribution. On- street parking on both sides would continue to be allowed on all streets as existing and in accordance with the City's parking ordinances. Concrete curbs and gutters and driveway aprons would be installed as part of the improvement. Traffic volumes on most of these streets are typical of local residential streets. Traffic counts on 65` Avenue indicate approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day, which is consistent with traffic volumes on residential streets. Some residents in the area have expressed traffic speed concerns. Most of the concerns were generated from Halifax Drive, citing cut through traffic as a primary issue. Traffic calming measures are not proposed as part of the improvements. There are no new sidewalks proposed as part of the project. Existing sidewalks within the project area are located along 65` Avenue and Beard Avenue. The sidewalk along 65` Avenue is proposed to be replaced and costs for removal and replacement are included in the feasibility estimate. The • majority of Beard Avenue sidewalk will remain in place with only spot repairs as necessary. No new sidewalks or trails are included in the cost estimates. Feasibility Report Garden City North Neighborhood Page 2 The cost estimates in this report do include a lump sum allocation ($34,000) for planting boulevard trees to replace those removed. An amount of $70,000 has also been allocated for replacement of street lights. NSP has provided a preliminary layout and cost estimate. Staff is working with NSP at this time to determine final pole locations and determine if more street lighting is needed. STORM DRAINAGE Improvement Project 2001 -02 (see Figure 2 for proposed storm sewer system) The existing storm sewer system in the project area was installed on a per development basis and is non - existent in the northern portion of the project. Piping and storm water intakes are proposed in this area to alleviate localized drainage problems. A portion of the northernmost drainage area is proposed to be directed into the Minnesota Department of Transportation's 1 -94 storm interceptor. A large portion of the drainage from the Garden City North neighborhood eventually flows to a large 66 -inch diameter trunk storm sewer located between 65` Avenue and 64` Avenue. This trunk system was recently repaired and to the extent possible will be utilized to convey storm water runoff to Shingle Creek. Additional intake and piping is also required in this area to remedy localized ponding problems. Survey results received from residents also indicate some localized incidents of standing water. A third drainage area, located south of 64` Avenue, is proposed to direct runoff into a newly constructed storm interceptor constructed along Beard Avenue. ® Figure 2 shows a preliminary concept for storm drainage improvements to serve the project area. The project design essentially provides for installation of additional storm sewers and catch basins to provide additional pick -up points throughout the neighborhood, thereby allowing streets to be regraded to provide more positive drainage, and to minimize localized flooding. To the extent practical the existing storm sewer system will be utilized. Additional piping and intakes throughout the proposed project area are estimated to cost $618,000. SANITARY SEWERS Improvement Project 2001 -03 (see Figure 3) All sanitary sewers in the project area generally are 8 -inch diameter clay pipe, installed in the 1950's. Because these sewers were constructed without gaskets in the joints, they are subject to a modest level of ground water infiltration. Often, it would not be cost - effective to eliminate this infiltration if the pipe itself were in good condition. However, while there are no capacity problems, city maintenance records, along with a televised inspection of all sewers in this area document a significant tree root infiltration problem and some structural defects in the sewer mains. Surveys received from residents also indicate various experiences with plugging of service lines that can often be attributed to root penetration of the pipe joints. City maintenance staff is required to routinely perform root sawing on the sanitary mains in the project area to prevent back -ups. The televised inspections have indicated that root infiltration is significant throughout the entire sanitary sewer system in Garden City North (Figure 3). In particular, root infiltration and blockages Feasibility Report Garden City North Neighborhood Page 3 are seen at the connection points between private service lines and the mains. Therefore, all sewer mains in the project area are proposed to be replaced. Staff has compared costs of complete replacements vs. repair and replacement of specific problem areas only. Because of construction • methods, mobilization costs, and in consideration of the final product and long term performance, it has been determined that in the long -term perspective, complete replacement appears more feasible at this time. An attempt will be made during the development of detailed plans to avoid replacing services in circumstance where complete replacement is not warranted. Additional information regarding sewer problems was received from property owners during the public participation process. Based on that information and additional review of other available information, final recommendations will be made during the final design process and project cost estimates will be revised accordingly. At this time the estimated cost of sanitary sewer work as proposed is $759,000. WATER MAINS Improvement Project 2001 -03 (see Figure 4) The water distribution system in this particular neighborhood was installed in the 1950's with unlined cast iron pipe, meaning pipe that did not have the corrosion resistant lining typically provided on cast iron pipes in later years. Internal corrosion to the these types of mains over the years typically contributes to water quality problems in neighborhoods where the mains have been installed. Also contributing to the problem is the hardness and high iron and manganese contents of the City's water. Water quality problems are often also a result of the type of internal piping installed within individual homes. Nevertheless, surveys returned to the City have indicated a very significant number of complaints relating to water quality. In response, the City proposes to replace all unlined cast iron pipes with newer ductile iron piping. While the replacements will probably not eliminate all water quality related complaints, a significant improvement overall is expected. The City performed a similar main replacement in other neighborhood reconstruction areas and indications suggest that an overall general improvement did result. Water pressures throughout the system are adequate. However, in some instances, water may become stagnant in certain areas as a result of poor circulation, and thus contribute to the water quality related problem. A computer model of the City's entire water system has been developed and can pin point areas where circulation improvements may be needed. Numerous iterations of changing combinations of pipe sizes were modeled in attempt to increase water circulation in the project area. Due to the balanced nature of the water distribution system within the project area, it was determined that the circulation could not be increased without compromising water pressure and fire flow in some areas. We therefore do not anticipate changing the sizes of mains when they are replaced. In addition, leaky valves, and aging hydrants would be replaced as part of this work. The cost of this water system work is estimated to be $760,000. ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS (see Figure 5) . The total estimated cost for the proposed project is $4,377,000. A detailed breakdown of this estimate, as well as funding sources is explained as follows in this report and attachment. Feasibility Report Garden City North Neighborhood Page 4 Costs and Funding for Street Improvements, Project No. 2001 -01 1 0he estimated project cost for roadway improvements for all streets in this project area is $2,241,400. These costs include project administration, engineering, street lighting and reforestation. It is proposed to levy special assessments for street improvements in accordance with the 2001 rates adopted by the City Council. The rates adopted by the City Council provide for a standard 2001 residential street assessment rate of $2,290 per residential property. These rates would be assessed to all benefited residential properties as shown in Figure 1. On this basis it is estimated that special assessments totaling $785,369.54 would be levied for street improvements. Costs and Funding for Storm Drainage Svstem Improvements, Project No. 2001 -02 The total estimated cost for storm drainage improvements within the Garden City North Neighborhood area is $618,000. This includes the cost of storm sewer construction throughout the project area. It is proposed to levy special assessments for storm drainage improvements in accordance with the 2001 rates adopted by the City Council. Application of this rate to properties benefited by these improvements will result in estimated special assessments of $750 per single- family residential unit. The total cost to be assessed would be $271,644.77. The Storm Drainage Utility Fund would pay for a substantial amount of the remainder of the storm sewer costs. Costs and Funding for Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Improvements, Proiect No. 2001 -03 The estimated cost of sanitary sewer repairs airs and /or replacements is $759,000 and the estimated costs p for water main repair and /or replacements is $760,000. As previously noted, these cost estimates are preliminary at this time. However, all such costs would be funded by their respective utility funds, in accordance with established policy for such improvements. Recommended 2001 Proiect Schedule January 22 City Council receives feasibility report and calls for public hearing February 26 Public Hearing, City Council may authorize the project and order preparation of plans and specifications March 13 Approve plans and specifications, authorize Ad for Bids April 4 Bid opening April 9 City Council awards contract May 1 Start construction September Construction Substantially Complete September Special Assessment Hearing Page S Feasibility Report Garden City North Neighborhood Conclusion The tem streets sewers utilities is critical to the e overall condition of the City's infrastructure system ( ) operation, safety, welfare, and economic health of the entire City. As a result of the infrastructure needs described, and the proposed solutions and estimated costs described in this report, the proposed project is considered to be necessary, cost effective, and feasible. f Todd Howard, P. E. City Engineer Reg. No. 23095 i s Feasibility Report Garden City North Neighborhood Page 6 PeZ ///94 Rp i i,� , I OW City of Brooklyn Center Garden City North AVE. 66T ENE - P N CITY 65TV AVE. i Storm Sewer GARDEN CITY Q _ _ PC`E RD. RAINBOW SHOPPING CENTER allENRY RD. W - y L 63RD "AVE NO. Fig. 2 63RD AVE NO. Not to Scab City of Brooklyn Center Garden City North N 5 1 6 AVE 66 AVE. I r I a a PAW 65fF_ AVE. — — — i Sanitary Sewer CAFCEN cxrY scHOM POE �. RAMIBOW SHOPM CENTER O'HENRY RD. P — 63RD AVE No. 63RD AVE NO. Fig. 3 Not to Scab City of Brooklyn Center Garden City North � 11t' rJ 5 AVE 66T� 6 nAV a � a / PARK 65T} AVE — qV�e Mo Watermain OARDEN C" SCHOOL PCE RD. I I I p � RAWBOW SIiOPPINC3 CENTER —_ _ —_ —_— — — — — O'HENRY RD. 63RD AVE. NO. .63RD AJE NO. Fig. 4 Not to Scab COSTS & FUNDING - IMP. PROJECT 2001 -01,02 & 03 GARDEN CITY NORTH - FEASIBILITY SUMMARY ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE STREET SANITARY WATERMAIN STORM ESTIMATED SEWER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,816,556.00 $ 646,043.00 $ 638,243.75 $ 527,435.00 $ 3,628,277.75 CONTINGENCY (10 %) $ 181,655.60 $ 64,604.30 $ 63,824.38 $ 52,743.50 $ 362,827.78 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,998,211.60 $ 710,647.30 $ 702,068.13 $ 580,178.50 $ 3,991,105.53 ADMIN, ENG., LEGAL $ 139,205.00 $ 48,327.00 $ 57,089.00 $ 37,323.00 $ 281,944.00 REFORESTATION $ 34,000.00 $ 34,000.00 STREET LIGHTS $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (FEASIBILITY) $ 2,241,416.60 $ 758,974.30 $ 759,157.13 $ 617,501.50 $ 4,377,049.53 ESTIMATED REVENUE STREET ASSESS = $2290 /UNIT X 288UNITS $ 659,520.00 $ 659,520.00 PARK ASSESSMENTS $ 14,560.00 $ 14,560.00 MULTI - RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT (R -5) $ 40,521.50 $ 20,260.75 $ 60,782.25 COMMERCIAL ASSESSMENT (C -1 ', $ 20,490.56 $ 10,205.58 $ 30,616.14 COMMERCIAL ASSESSMENT (C -2) $ 25,268.88 $ 12,634.44 $ 37,903.32 SCHOOL ASSESSMENT $ 25,088.00 $ 12,544.00 $ 37,632.00 SANITARY SEWER FUND $ 758,974.30 $ 758,974.30 WATER FUND $ 759,157.13 $ 759,157.13 RES. STORM DRAINAGE ASSESS =$750/ UNIT X 288 UNITS $ 216,000.00 $ 216,000.00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY FUND $ 345,856.73 $ 345,856.73 MSA - LOCAL $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONST FUND $ 1,401,047.66 $ 1,401,047.66 TOTAL EST. REVENUE (FEASIBILITY) $ 2,241,416.60 $ 758,974.30 $ 759,157.13 $ 617,501.50 $ 4,377,049.53 ` FIGURE 5 SURVEY SUMMARY RESULTS Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns None N/A Every 2 -3 years No No None Yes No No Rust in water None One tree No No No Does not want tree near sanitary service to be removed, city advised resident to plant tree in current location; sanitary service only 20 years old; wants speed bumps on 66 Ave. France to Xerxes Brooklyn Blvd. 6532 Trees in blvd Two times in 5 No Chlorine smell and years, 110 feet from taste house Chowen Ave. 6506 One tree Yes No Sometimes low pressure 6507 One tree Every 1 -2 years No No Crime; freeway noise; freeway dirt 6513 One tree Every 5 -6 years No No None 6537 N/A Two times; cause No Bad taste was roots Drew Ave. 6539 One spruce Twice in 30 yrs No No Interested in remodeling classes 1 Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns 6606 One tree 10' from No No Sometimes muddy Concerned about service irrigation system; loss of trees Ewing Ave. 6606 Yes No Driveway ponding ? Stop sign on 66`' and street puddles and Ewing, interested in workshops on remodeling, and wants a larger driveway apron 6527 None Once No No None 6532 None Once No No None France Ave. 6306 None Once No No 6315 Yes Once No Cloudy, oily, and Need more street hard lights; wants traffic light on Halifax and Brooklyn Blvd.; need more speed limit signs Poe Road 3204 Maple in blvd Roots in service, No Poor quality clean every two years 3300 Ash in blvd No Standing water in Poor quality; bad Do not want to lose Poe and O'Henry taste; sometimes off trees in yard; intersection color Interested in remodeling workshops; wants to choose new blvd trees 2 Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns 3319 Trees in blvd No Puddle at the end of Poor quality; tastes Speeding on Beard the driveway when bad; rust it rains O'Henry Road 3007 None Yes No Low pressure 3018 Elm in blvd Once a year None Low pressure Neighboring yards eye sore; will sewer service be damaged when blvd tree is removed? 3019 N/A No No No 3101 No Once No Slimy water Need a better way to enforce codes 3119 N/A No No Poor pressure Removed sprinkler system line closest to the curb >Does the line 13 feet back have to be removed? 3201 Linden in blvd Yes No No Speeding cars; concerns about underground sprinkler system 3212 No No No No 64 Ave. 3124 One tree Every 2 -3 years No Rust; poor duality 3125 N/A No No Low pressure 3200 N/A No No Rusty water 3213 None No No Odor; poor quality 3218 No No No Yes Wants sidewalks 3 Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns 3300 One tree No Water in the garage Odor in water; poor Wants smell and after heavy rain taste; rust taste of water to improve after project is completed 3301 No No No Low pressure Neighbors parking in street 3318 None No No Rust and iron Job reconstruction takes too long; remove too many trees; Speeding cars on Beard; Law against dumping trees in the street? Curfew for street parking in the summer? Concerns about sod. 65"' Ave. 3025 No No Puddle at the end of Taste bad; dirt in Wants more street driveway; basement shower water lights floods 3107 None Once No Hard water Speeding cars on 65 , Beard to Xerxes 3124 One tree No Drainage ditch in Slightly cloudy Cars parked in street the right away overnight; garbage cans left in front yard 3200 None 3 times in 20 years No Smells sour Cars parked in street overnight 3301 None No No Low pressure Speeding on 65 "' ; large volume of traffic 4 Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns Quarles Road Quarles No Sluggish drain No Concerned about 3008 system sprinkler system 3019 N/A Twice Floods in basement No Next door is an eye sore; interested in landscaping workshop and block watch group 3100 Yes Yes No Foul smell; muddy More street lights 3101 None Once a year No Poor quality; not Concerns about drinkable losing trees 3119 Yes N/A Basement floods Tastes bad None 3207 No Every two years No No None 3212 One tree Twice in past four No No City Engineer's years decision 3301 Two trees No No No 3306 N/A Once No Tastes and smells Sight triangle at bad Beard and Quarles and at 65` and Xerxes 3307 N/A Every few years Quarles and Beard No Some houses in intersection has a neighborhood are an big puddle when it eye sore rains 3312 Yes Every few years Water pools up at Occasionally a bad the end of the smell and taste driveway 3319 N/A Cleaned three times street drainage? No 5 I Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns 66 "' Ave. 3007 One Norway Maple No No No Why are hydrants flushed every week in the summer? 3012 One tree Two times last year Water in driveway Poor quality Concerns about how after rain driveway is replaced 3018 One ash No Puddle and ice in No Want another street winter at end of light; when hydrants driveway are flushed in the fall leaves from the street plug the catch basins so the water does not drain 3019 Yes Every 2 -3 years No Bad smell; orange Too many cars in neighboring driveways; junk in yards and garages; more street lights 3100 N/A No No Rust; fowl taste More street lights 3101 N/A Every 1 -2 years No Rust; bad smell More street lights; wants a new driveway /please notify her of new driveway plans 3106 N/A Once a year No No None 6 Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns 3107 N/A Twice a year No Water quality worse Wants to be after hydrant is informed about all flushed meetings that are held Occasionally water No "Dips" repaired on Occ y 3113 One tree No 66 ", interested in comes up through the drain in workshops basement 3207 One tree No No No Some houses in the neighborhood are rundown; neighbor with ugly dirt driveway 3213 One tree Once a year No Scummy water Interested in landscaping ideas 3409 One tree Once a year No Sand in water Wants dip in the road a Chowen and 66 to stay; slow ! traffic 3600 N/A Every 2 -3 years No Water quality good 3601 Lilac bushes near Once a year No No Speeding cars on 66 th service 3700 No Yes No Poor duality 3701 N/A Every 6 -8 months Some water in the No basement with heavy rain 3800 N/A N/A N/A N/A Concerns with cable above house, wants them buried 3801 N/A Twice in 5 years No No Beard Ave. 6406 N/A Once No No 7 • Address Trees Sanitary Storm Water Comments/ Concerns Halifax Drive 6300 None No No No Speeding traffic 6301 One tree Once a year No Odor occasionally Using Halifax to avoid light on Brooklyn Blvd and 63 Ave.; speeding cars on Halifax 6309 None No No No Traffic, speeding, and cutting into their yard when turning the corner 6321 None No Puddle in street No High traffic volume from Brooklyn Blvd on Halifax; speeding cars on Halifax Drive 6325 Yes Every 2 years No Odor occasionally Using Halifax to avoid traffic light on Brooklyn and 63 ra , " but do not want to be restricted from entering own neighborhood 6345 One tree No Puddle in No Using Halifax to intersection of avoid lights on Halifax and France Brooklyn Blvd and 63 ; junk in yards 8 City Council Agenda Item No. 7b • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2001 TO: Michael I McCauley, City Manager FROM: Michael Krech, Public Works Specialist SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinance Regarding Management of Right of Way Presented this evening for second reading and public hearing is an ordinance amending Chapter 25 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinance regarding management of right of way. Staff has reviewed the Right of Way Ordinance and recommends adopting the attached Ordinance. Changes in Section 1 were done to reconcile changes that the Public Utilities Commission adopted after the City adopted the current Ordinance. The main effect of these changes is to broaden the definition of "Right of Way User ", include "Degradation Costs" as part of "City Costs ", and redefine the "Restoration Bond" more broadly as the "Construction Performance Bond ". Changes in Section 2 more clearly specify when extensions are required and is consistent with other agencies' Ordinances. This is the language that is used in the Hennepin County Ordinance. Section 3 requires that permit applicant must provide any required deposits. This supports language that has been added to the Permit Fees section of the Ordinance which allows the City to require a deposit. The additions in Section 4 are necessary to reinforce the concept of corridors which has been restricted by the PUC since the adoption of the current Ordinance. The Director would be authorized to determine the appropriate location of such facilities. This is intended to maintain an efficient and appropriate use of the right of way. The changes also specify a "General Requirements" document that the City will use to specify construction methods, locations, and restoration requirements. Hennepin County has a document like this as part of its Ordinance that the City will use as a guide. The addition in Section 5 gives the City the right to require a monetary deposit. This deposit shall be used to offset City costs such as additional management costs by staff and consultants as well as other costs not limited to degradation and restoration costs. Section 7 limits the size of the permit so that the City can maintain a scope of work that is manageable. The changes to Section 8 give the City a more defensible position for the denial of permits. By listing some of the ossible and most likely reasons it should also reduce the applications that p Y An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinance Regarding Management of Right of Way Page 2 may need to be denied. This section is also more consistent with other right of way ordinances. The changes to Section 9 are also intended to give the City a more defensible Ordinance. The new language more specifically defines the criteria for restricting the location of facilities. The addition in Section 9 is necessary as a matter of reference. The remaining changes to the Ordinance such as Section 6 and the changes of "equipment" to "facilities" and "Restoration Bond" to "Construction Performance Bond" are needed for continuity with the definitions specified in Section 25 -1001. These changes will bring the City up to date with the existing PUC rules as well as create more consistency with the City's Ordinance and other agencies. The updates also makes the changes necessary to prepare the City for the planned cable over builds expected this spring. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 26 day of February, 2001, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 25 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances relating to management of the right of way. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 25 -1001 is hereby amended as follows: Section 25 -1001. DEFINITIONS. The following efinitions apply to the Right-of- g pp y g Way Management Ordinance of this Code. Unless used in a context which indicates otherwise, defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized. a. "Applicant" means any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right -of -way. b. "City" means the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. For purposes of Section 25 -1026, city includes its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. n. "City Cost" means the actual cost incurred by the City for public rights -of -way management; including but not limited to costs associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right -of -way permit applications; creating information and maintaining information on a geoogranhical information item (CTTC) . manning system _degradation costs; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user : qui facilities during public right -of -way work; providing traffic control due to applicant's neglect or inadequate performance; determining the adequacy of right -of -way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed; and revoking right -of -way permits and performing all other tasks required by this Right of Way Management Ordinance, including other costs the city may incur in managing the provisions of this Right of Way Management Ordinance. . I " C'onstniction Performance Bo nd" me ans nny of the following forms of security provided at the nermittee's option- ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 1. Individual nr ject bond; i 2. C� sa I ' -; 3. Security of a form listed or approved under Minn_ S tat § 15.72, subdivision 3' 4. better of credit, in a form acceptable to the Director; 5. Self- insurance, in a form acceptabl to the Director 6. A blanket bond for projects with the Ci ty r 7. Other forms of a construction bond, for a time Specified and in a form acceptable to the Director_ e_ "De gradation" means decrease in the us .fill life of the right-of-w caused h_Y excavation in or disturbance of the right -o way, resu lting in the need to reconstruc cuch ri ght -of -way earlier than would he required if the excavation or disturbance did not oc cur f "De gradation cost" means the cost to achieve a l evel of restoratio as de erne pined by the ci at the time permit is i cc>>ed, noi-to exr,eed t he maximum restoration Shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules 7819.9900 to 7819.9950_ dg. 'Delay Penalty" means the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right -of -way construction. eh. 'Department" means the Department of Public Works of the City. fi. 'Department Inspector" means any person authorized by the Director to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this Right of Way Management Ordinance. "Director" means the City Manager, or her or his designee. hk. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement in order to restore service to a customer. il. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right -of -way. j 'Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right -of -way, except horticultural practices of penetrating the boulevard area to a depth of less than 12 inches. inn. 'Excavation Permit" means the permit which must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right -of -way. An excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right of way described in such permit. ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 In. "Excavation Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 25 -1009. nv. "Facility" or "Far. ilitieS" means any tangible asset in the right -of -way required to provide Utility Service, but shall not include boulevard plantings or gardens planted or maintained in the right of way between a person's property and the street edge or curb. nq. "In," when used in conjunction with "right -of- way," means over, above, in, within, on or under a right -of -way. or. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this Right - of -Way Management Ordinance. ps. "Obstruct" means to place any object in a right -of -way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right -of -way. qt. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right -of -way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right -of -way by placing facilities described therein on the right -of -way for the duration specified therein. ru. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a registrant to cover the costs as provided in Section 25 -1009. sy. "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right -of -way has been granted by the City under this Right of Way Management Ordinance. tw. "Person" means any natural or corporate person, business association or other business entity including, but not limited to, a partnership, a sole proprietorship, a political subdivision, a public or private agency of any kind, a utility, a successor or assign of any of the foregoing, or any other legal entity which has or seeks to have any right -of -way. trx. "Registrant" means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its facilities located in any right -of -way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right -of -way or any :,.& facilities in the right -of -way. vy. "Repair" means the temporary construction work necessary to make the right -of- way useable for travel. v. "Rt stvia�iuu Donn" means a pcifuint bond, a l;,u,:�, of ���a��, %, & U1 other f6rrr — oT sccuidy pustcd to ciisuio dio ' to ORDINANCE NO. Page 4 assure that right=rrf- W a vaLwi, aiid oba&aetl: " � 6 buim tilil%�l allLl- rctalil 111aai,iC11. xz. "Restore or Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right -of -way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition that existed before the commencement of the work. yaa. "Restoration Cost" means an amount of money paid to the City by a permittee to cover the cost of restoration. zhh. "Right -of -Way" means the surface and space above and below a right -of -way for public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane and public sidewalk purposes in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights -of -way for travel purposes and utility easements of the city. aa.aa. "Right -of -Way Management Ordinance" means Sections 25 -1000 through 25 -1032 of this Code. bbdd. "Right -of -Way Permit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this Right -of- Way Management Ordinance. ee. Right - -Way T Tse means- L A telecom right -o f -way ii-,(-,r ns de fined b y Minn. Sta" 21T 162,giibdivision 4; or 2.. A person owning or controllinga facility in thepublic right -of -way that is used or is intended to he used for nmviding utility service, and who has a righ t u nder law, franchise, or ordinance to use the 12ilblic right- of -wav eeff. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes but is not limited to (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes ' 216B.02, Subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) telecommunications, pipeline, community antenna television, fire and alarm communications, water, electricity, light, heat, cooling energy, or power services; (3) the services provided by a corporation organized for the purposes set forth in Minnesota Statutes' 300.03; (4) the services provided by a district heating or cooling system, and (5) cable communications systems as defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238. tl-dgg. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right -of -way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that has already been issued. �.,. 11u11iCa�io�� 1'.igiils- of -`�'ay Us.,� ����a��� a Y�i�vii ., W.II.1 V1 ,,,,11«„11:.16 a I I y iii tl�e publiQ �ight-orf -way �� s��ki��g t� t)w�� v� uw�t�vl a faei�izy • pt6lk ii iit=�� - way, Lhat is used or is iiiit iil d to Lc us�,a fvj. t� i i v�iuiiuiiii Zttiilll �� otl�, vui%.V, Qi d at a in fui��iA LO.Li. ro. Yuipom o %if ll. is R.I.l- ORDINANCE NO. Page 5 -Way Ma��a ���.�,��1 O�:l���a����, a �aLl: ��������u��:. ut���� system - -deli,%, aI�d i. r , - ulat,.,d undw M11111%,suta utatute acid t.:lz, - -I ji ...... livities J.%,.aLcd to �ov�dlii ��aiwal - as �� �1��1��� ��.�� s��vi:c� arc ilot a- � � � �y t\+1VVV111111U111lJCLL1V11J ii way u3i,is. ffhh. "Unusable Equlpiimnt Facili ties" means :,qui facilities in the right -of -way which has remained unused for one year and for which the registrant is unable to provide proof that it has either a plan to begin using it within the next twelve (12) months or a potential purchaser or user of the Section 2. Section 25 -1003 is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 3. Exceptions. i Use by r n iva lando wners of ,utility easement areas for Facilities that are not inconsistent with the rights of parties entitled to use the easement Section 3. Section 25 -1006 is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Permit Required. c. Exceptions. A permit shall not be required for: f I Ne by private landowners o f utility easement areas for Facilities that are not inconsistent with the rights e ntitled to use the easement Subdivision 2. Permit Extensions. No person may rxcaTat�, ut ub3&aet —the right =ter wa L% the- dat::,1 dates ullkss s`1 F 1 %Jl, ii) ��lak u supplik,111;,11 Lai y before - tll F%,lliiu, an (n) a 11cw Pciniil. V1 F "1111A LALL,1131611 is giwa%ld work in or obstruct the right- of-way beyond the date specified in the permit or do any work beyond that specified in the permit unless such perso makes n sun p lementary annlication for a extens or modification of the wor Cperlfled in the-permi h for xnira ion of the Vermit, pays a permit extension fee and is grant . a nerr�t extension b y the Director. The Director may extend the completion or scope of the work if the specified work could not he don hecanse of circums beyond the control of the permit holder Section 4. Section 25 -1007 is hereby amended as follows: Section 9S -1 QD_Z PERMIT APPLICATIONS. Application for a permit is made to the Director. Right -of -way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions: a. Registration with the Director pursuant to this Chapter; b. Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the specific location and area of the proposed project and the detailed location of all existing and proposed ��u1t,.iiciit ORDINANCE NO. Page 6 facilities c. Payment of all money due to the City for 1. permit fees and costs, and any required deposit, d. When an excavation permit is requested for purposes of installing additional and the posting of a %,AviaLivii construction performance bond for the additional insufficient, the posting of an additional or larger restoration construction performance bond for the additional be required. Section 5. Section 25 -1008 is hereby amended as follows: Srnhdivkio I Standards for Construction or Installatio The requ irements and standards for facility construction or installation are contained in the General Requirements as specified by the Director- The Director may igiLr_ ron hihit specific locations for facilities wi bin the right -of- -way, or any particular segment thereof All excavation, obstruction, or other hermits i scned by the Director involving t he, install or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper location for the facility at issue_ Th Direc may -de a permit al)jilication, asprovided in Section 25 -1014, in the event the proposed location of such facilities is not consistent with the location required by the Directo The D irector r evoke a permit, • as provided in Section 25 -1019, in the v nt the facilities r installed in a location that is inconsistent with the location desigiiated in the apl)licable pen-nit- Any regis trant whose facilities were previously located in the ri t -of -w y in a position at variance with the locations established by the Director shall, no la ter than a t the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area where its facilities are located, move that facility to its assigned position within the right -of -way, unless this requirement is waived by the Direc for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the facilities,_nuhlic safety, custom service, needs and hardship o o the r egistrant. Section 6. Section 25 -1009 is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision I Deposit The Director may require that a permit application he arS.omnanied by a de osi , in addition to the Permit Fe and Co nstruction Performance Bond_ in an amount established by the Director in order to offset any City costs that exceed the amount co vered b y the Permit Fe Such additional City costs m ay inchu but are not limited to, inspection costs for consultants or indenend .nt contractors, legal fees, and other out of pocket exp enses, degradation costs, or restoration costs_ The en rmit fee will cover City staff time spent in t1,P admin ra ion of the permit process and in inspection activities_ The Director may requ an a pplicant to submit a single deposit in an mo mt intended to cover all City costs which he Dire , or determines, ma he incu rring the subsequent twelve ( mi) month period based on an appli an 's construction an d major m plan filed in accord wi th Section 25- 100-5 The Director shall appro all exp enses charged ORDINANCE NO. Page 7 against the dell, and the u portion thereof shall he returned to the applicant The Director may periodically require that the deposit amount h replenished as exp enses are aged against the denn sit. The I)ermit aD lication shall ffirther state that the ap licant agrees to reimburse the City for a ny City co sts incurred by the City i exces of the amount of the deposit_ Subdivision - 34. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of such fees before the issuance of such a permit. Subdivision 45. Non refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the Director has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 25 -1019 are not refundable. Subdivision 5.6. Use of Permit Fees. All obstruction and excavation permit fees shall be used solely for city management, construction, maintenance and repair costs of the right -of -way. Section 7. Section 25 -1010 is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 2. Repair and Restoration. Permittee shall repair and restore its own work. The permittee shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a restoration construction performance bond in an amount determined by the Director to be sufficient to cover the cost of restoring the right -of -way to its pre- excavation condition. If, twelve (12) months after completion of the restoration of the right -of -way, the Director determines that the right -of -way has been properly restored, the surety on the restoration constni , ion performance bond shall be released. Permittees with whom the City has a current franchise agreement, or authorized agents, contractors, or subcontractors of that franchise shall not be required to post a restoration construction performance bond. Subdivision 4. Guarantees. $y-- e1,00s,,,6 to �:IAVIC, 1.�, itself, permittee guarantees its work and shall maintain it for twelve (12) months following its completion. During this 12 -month period it shall, upon notification from the Director, correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the Director. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the Director, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 25 -1013. Subdivision 5. Failure to Restore. If the Permittee fails to restore the right -of -way in the manner and to the condition required by the Director, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the Director, the Director at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right -of -way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the motion construction p dorm nce bond. Section 8. Section 25 -1012 is hereby amended as follows: ORDINANCE NO. Page 8 • Subdivision 1. Limitation on Area. A right -of -way permit is valid only for the area of the right -of -way specified in the permit which shall not exceed one (1) lineal mile of right - of-way No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. The total area for which a pennittee shall be permitted at anyone time, p ursuant to multiple permits or hermit extensions, shall not exc three (3) lineal miles of right -of wT Section 9. Section 25 -1014 is hereby amended as follows: Section 25 - 1 014- DENIAL OF PERMIT. The Director may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this Ri ht -of -Wa i��a��a � �i��: ��� Y r Ordinance if the Director determines that denial is necessary to protect the p lh11 ic health, safety and welfare_, Q_p revent i nterference with the safe and co nvenience of ordinar; travel over the right - of way, may, and welfare - or when necessary to protect the Right right -of-Way - way and its current use. The Director, in his/her discretio may co nsider factors including_ a- the extent to which right-of-way space where the_nermit is sought is available- h- the competing demands for the particular space in the right -of wad ,c. the avail ability of other lomtions in the right or in other rights of - wa - y for the equiDment of the rmi lnn icant; dl the aDDlicability of ordinance or ot her remi lations of the righ t-of-way that affect location of egillpment in the right- of -wav; the degree of co m nlianc o the applicant with he terms a nd condit of its �_ , e franchise, this Right -of -Way Management Ordinance, and other applicable ordinances and regulations; f- the degree of disru u tion to srroiindin� Comm mities and h ssP sineC. that will result from the use of that part of the right g- the condition and age of the rlgbt-of-w_ and wbether and w hen it is scheduled for total or partial reconstniction; and h_ the balancing of the costs of disruption to the public and damage to the right - of -way, against h b n .fi s to that Dart of the r b lic served by the expansion into additional parts of the ri ht-of-way- ORDINANCE NO. Page 9 - Tf, in the discretion of the Director the issuance of a permit for the particular date and /or time wild cause a conflict or interfere wit an eNbihition, celebration, festival, or any other v .n . Section 10. Section 25 -1017 is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 2. Non - Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right -of -way must subsequently obtain a permit, pay double the normal fee for said permit, pa 1„ all other - L, ,6 icquin:A by dais eodc- ofCidinauuc., deposit with the Director the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right -of -way and comply with all of the requirements of this Right - of -Way Management Ordinance. Section 11. Section 25 -1021 is hereby amended as follows: Section 25 - 1021 _ LOCATION OF PME�3' FACTT.TTTF,S Subdivision 1. Undergrounding. Unless otherwise permitted by mrexisting- f:a:.,1��: or Minnesota Statutes, Section, 21613.36, uld,�S�, i%,pa�ncd of �� J, ikww LvnS lU%,�iv_ n anLt new construction, the installation of new facilities and the replacement of old s shall be done underground or contained within buildings or other structures in conformity with applicable codes except that the Director may annrove above ground location and installation that the Director has determined mnnot reasonably he plared i mp ground due to expense, nature, or function if there are no unreasnn safety, maintenance, or aesthetic co ncerns o r conflicts with the current use o the rl t -of- V , unless fbr tCC1mi,dl i�1a6vjiS ayyivved by the �� �li� ally t ,ussibl%, u, pi. u&u,' to-do se. Section 12. Section 25 -1032 is hereby amended as follows: Section 5 - 103 WAIVER. The Director may waive any or all requirements of Sections 25 -1003 through 25 -1005, 25 -1006 through 25 -1009, and 25 -1020 if compliance is not deemed to be reasonably necessary, in the discretion of the Director, to serve the purposes of this Right -of -Way Management Ordinance. The decision of the Director not to waive any such requirement is not subject to appeal to the city council. Section 5 - 10 .1 May he waived as p rovided t he rein - Waiver of provisions of Sections 25 -1003 through 25 -1005 and 25 -1020 may be rescinded by the Director at any time upon written notice to the person subject to the requirement. Section 13. Section 25 -1000, 1003, 1023 and 1028 are hereby amended by replacing "is" with "are" where it occurs after "equipment ". Section 14. Section 25 -1000, 1003, 1006, 1017, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026 and 1028 are hereby amended by deleting all references to "equipment " or "equipment is" and substituting "facilities" or "facilities are" therefor ORDINANCE NO. Page 10 Section 15. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) • City Council Agenda Item No. 7c Office of the City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk I�A" Xv DATE: February 21, 2001 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Regarding Licensing of Rental Units This ordinance amendment requires a rental dwelling license applicant to provide his/her full name and date of birth. This information is necessary in the event that the prosecuting attorney would need to take action against a rental dwelling property owner. This ordinance amendment is offered for a second reading and public hearing. The effective date of the ordinance would be April 6, 2001. 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 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 26" day of February, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Regarding Compliance Order. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING LICENSING OF RENTAL UNITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 12 -903. OWNER OR AGENT TO APPLY. License application or renewal shall be made by the owner of rental units or his legally constituted agent. Application forms may be acquired from and subsequently filed with the compliance official. The applicant shall supply: 1. Name First, middle (if any) and last name, address, date of birth and telephone number of dwelling owner, owning partners if a partnership, corporate officers if a corporation. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) • I City Council Agenda Item No. 8a MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager Ir- From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist �L . Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 2001- 002 Date: February 21, 2001 On the February 26, 2001, City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -002 submitted by Harry S. Johnson Company, Inc. (For Medtronics, Inc.) requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to combine three contiguous parcels of land at 6700 thru 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway into a single parcel. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -002 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 February 15, 2001, 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 1 -25 -01 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 3 -26 -01 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2001 -002 Applicant: Harry S. Johnson Company, Inc. (For Medtronic, Inc.) Location: 6700 thru 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway " Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant, Thomas Hodorff on behalf of Harry S. Johnson Company, Inc., is seeking Preliminary Plat approval to combine three contiguous parcels of land owned by Medtronic, Inc. at 6700 thru 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway into a single parcel of land approximately 19 acres in area. The properties under consideration are zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and are currently described as Tracts B, C and D, RLS 1360. They are located on the east side of Shingle Creek Parkway between 67` and 69' Avenues North. The Hiawatha Rubber site and the Earle Brown Farm Apartments abut these properties to the east and a speculative industrial building lays to the west of the building at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. Tract B is 477,595 sq. ft. (10.94 acres) in area and contains a 168,239 sq. ft. office /industrial building (6800 Shingle Creek Parkway). Tract C is 196,096 sq. ft. (4.59 acres) in area and contains a parking lot serving the Medtronic Promeon facility. Tract D is 156,967 sq. ft. (3.59 acres) in area and contains the 78,133 sq. ft. Medtronic Promeon building (6700 Shingle Creek Parkway). The combination of these three parcels will create a two building campus for Medtronic in this area. Section 35 -540 of the zoning ordinance requires multiple parcels of land to be combined through platting or Registered Land Survey when they are contiguous, under common ownership and serve a single development. This is the case and it's one of the reasons Medtronic is pursuing this platting. BACKGROUND In 1979, under Planning Commission Application No. 79057, Medtronic received approval to expand its building at 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway. The expansion comprehended an approximate 53,000 sq. ft., two -story addition to the north side of their then existing building. Medtronic owned the adjacent lot to the north (Tract C, RLS 1360) and the proposed expansion went slightly on to that property and parking for the expansion also took up a portion of the adjacent lot. There was, and still is, a 40 ft. wide drainage and utility easement running along the south side of the north lot (Tract C) and a portion of the north part of the existing Medtronic site (Tract D). This easement contains water main and sanitary sewer lines. The plan in 1979 was to relocate the water main to the north and redescribe the easement. Medtronic had also filed a companion application at that time (Planning the t Commission Application No. 79058) for Preliminary Plat approval combining wo p arcels 2 -15 -01 Page 1 (Tract C and Tract D) into a single parcel. The platting also comprehended a new description for the location of the 40 ft. utility easement reflecting the relocated water main. A condition of approval at that time required filing the final plat prior to occupancy of the expanded building. A final plat had been approved but, for some reason, never was filed with Hennepin County. Therefore, the two separate lots still exist, as does the old utility easement. The water main was relocated with the 1979 project and the building expansion was made. The building addition now encroaches over the property line and into the easement. The proposed platting, which is the subject of this application, will correct these encroachments and establish the proper location for the 40 ft. utility easement located between the Promeon building and the north parking lot. Medtronic has also acquired 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway and currently occupies over 50 percent of the space in that building. They plan, over time, to possibly occupy the entire facility for manufacturing and office activities related to Medtronic functions. They are currently planning a 9,900 sq. ft. building expansion on this site. They want to combine this building site with their other lots so that surplus parking at the Medtronic parking facility could be used to off set expanded building area or increased parking demands associated with expanded office occupancies in that building. Their proposed building expansion is the subject of their companion application (No. 2001 -003). The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat and his written comments are attached. He has indicated that no Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review is required with this plat or with the site plan proposed under Application No. 2001 -003. He notes that this platting and easement dedication will properly describe the easement containing the public utilities. In addition to the 40 ft. utility easement previously mentioned, there are a number of existing and proposed easements indicated on the preliminary plat. An existing 30 ft. utility easement is located along the east side of Tract C and a new 15 ft. utility easement is proposed to be dedicated in this area also. An ingress, egress and cross access easement exists between the 6800 building site and the adjacent property at 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway that lies to the west. This easement will continue in the future. A new 10 ft. wide drainage and utility easement is proposed over a sanitary sewer line lying east of the 6800 building. Ten foot wide easements are, or will be, provided along 67' Avenue North, Shingle Creek Parkway and the property line between 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway and the 6800 building. A 14 ft. roadway and utility easement exists along 69' Avenue North also. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices of the Planning Commission's consideration have been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. 2 -15 -01 Page 2 ® RECOMMENDATION The proposed preliminary plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 2 -15 -01 Page 3 n i - i i - ' . , c- . x�v�ti�� Air ' ■� t �'� J` � . 2 �✓,"'�. t �t 1 � � +` i i TS' t� '1 [i�: .c T:. ;\.�..ti. - � . , i {.i, 1 Vii.: � 3 ! Y /-. L l:S F• . 1 ♦ll - � Alp 11 � u �ti► _ _�► f i t i ■alaw a ■■■ .,, �r • NINE �■■■ !� ■�■��� •pia ��■ ■■��, ■■ �iME • o . ii ii r i iii ii 3 v l ie PO wo S F:5 er `° i'�"��W t i. h _ � � ' - � PZ ,� .� � �'/,✓��� r�yE'.. i � 3r S� •r f j' � ✓..� .S, r� ` � r � � � '.4 � �� � } V A ' �., i �' .Rid'' �:d�'�r� An %d �� 4�t. ,�,�h X* Ik t � � .,; ,y� 1 � ay z 5 �•'�� E ♦ .. ,. -� ?��.� }` �. { q �, ' F 1 k^'t::N.dT,c �+ q ��'S' � - '�Y ` F�.` 'a%' - � r " �''�'��,'.� y: K • t �� V �.� . ' 4 - ',F�' as��.J .,h k� "�,sr X'�'` �. ..�� },ify �k.�. _ u` �,2� �,a ` 'z • �c' � � ` ';} - I �5.1<:tX...+„ 1�.ff ;.,• 11 ow I.w•. t e... `w /I -�" � � r j. ,..rte � . H �y'S`k . S ., j � �j;�, +w��+ x Ie w , ~i J. �� "',1p �: �� J,`' .•cam -� � i .. ;� r 4 � e � a �� } �� v � t f it it k 1 e> P r ' P v '` s a. >� � � c �.. •,ors T r .,>_� A � � '�� ' �r � ."�"`"�. 'r„ .. •?� + ` �� ', f } wy 1 rrtl ._�K✓ l x ,� � i t,� ;r�.,r ,� ��' n �.u:il'r.( ,�'�f"• . .t� frK�tj ' ; ..*T.'' wr _. e y 3 ( �., �•r< V9989 MM I�.�.� R�la a a IYfS -YB8 �ZS6� 10v ,• I — .11.,.,,1 w�i - -. , , lu OD NId3NN3N MEW �0 color 4�m OLYSis Nm6t'14 OILLI a ws 4 w uKe ., .. 'M V311/ O NA'DKXMS s wm3Aa ns o NYI Nlww IW M X • Y 1 PA M M•� Zlll00Z ""`*"p :' Jl21VNIWll321d •ONI '•oa NosNHOP •s xaav , �,,.,,�,,,,,, �,,,» N »'�:.'R«.., .oawol lao.I au rtasal� um+ O.8 a3wdUd A3M1ans wo.nr wsw• � u,I . w .•••. YIO..1•N., Mr,• , Nyp • •»•,• II'K O,IIA1 R I w•Iw � � I ! waw•vaw n•� i . I •mow �� w. a.a .. ..h•we 1 w I' '•• • r. ` WN •a1111IOM — /.•IM wI�N•M14 t,•M. A.I,A.M�1 , � � � � � � I I- -- ,.wN.....�.,.— .r.r -..., r �.,......•,N.,,N .�.M.. WW3I w.a „w,..�w ,n �I w, �., w..r•I v ••R / i ' T 1 i i I I I :y \ \ \,\ \ \C�\� \ A � / . hn, l 1 , I�w , 1•�a ,•�II,III VIM AY.IVMO NMt / � •^ ` it 1 'll� ; I \N \��. \.i \ \� \ \ \�\ ` -- \ ` t- 1 1� I �• Q �� i��� ,.�� \. 41,1 11 ■ [ raunr•a•n•st / t 1 �41 4' ; I , ,r � �, I' 1 \ \\ \\\ \\\ \\� �� , i lh� ■ .,..• a YOM a / ; I ` i I ; .� \\::•.a \\ \\ b0'OS• - ,HVI1QlM 1MI d01 /• , , \\\ ,,•\ \� r�rl i h'I .IAN MJM)e ! . I I' \ \..\ .. i \ ":;q c h.16 • Mlw ,rwl �/ ' ` T' I1; 1 ', 1 ,G 4 1 � ,` ,/ r J ;�:1 ° ' I 11 ww�� - II ' •I a� • ' � � Hawn .� ` `t�V �� i '� t \ ' Y\\\ $ i ( lon SIMIS ✓.r,_� � glln �I I � \ \ \ \ \ \�, ' t � 11� •\� \\ � .,> a i ' ' , ♦t 1 all ' a \ \'w� ?; ;a:,,: 1\ �� \ \� \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \j \ \� \ \ \ \��� .. ' : i °i; i t I �\ \\ � \\\ \ A i I ' ` �d - - - _ ♦� t � � ♦' 't gin', ?I —�'.� � —� _ \ awMw,w uvw»1v1� - i' . ♦ � �, \ a ��_ �% _ -- -'_ "• _� v! +il I I a �� 1 ' • �< K \tlt�L t I 1 �" �� I I.II..I ,II II.1•a! MAN win • .vnvrva •w vva MEMORANDUM DATE: February 8, 2001 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Todd Howard, City Engineer' SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Medtronic Shingle Creek Addition The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary plat dated January 18, 2001 and the grading and drainage plan dated February 5, 2001. Comments are as follows: • The existing 40' easement located between Tract C and Tract D does not adequately describe the location of public utilities. An attempt was made in 1980, and again in the early 1990's, to correct this oversight, however, the necessary easement dedication never occurred. The subject preliminary plat does address and correctly dedicate an easement over the existing public utilities. • Storm water runoff from 69 Avenue is routed through a storm sewer located near the eastern property boundary of Tract B. The preliminary plat shows a 10 -foot drainage and utility easement over this storm sewer. • Ed Mathieson of the Shingle Creek Water Management Organization has been contact regarding the platting and building addition. No formal review of the plan is required due to the limited scope of the project and that there is no change in site hydrology. • Copies of the Preliminary Plat have been submitted to Hennepin County: Per Dave Zetterstrom, Permits Coordinator, Hennepin County has no comments on the subject plat. • Any recommendations or comments of the City Attorney will also need to be considered. • City Council Agenda Item No. 8b MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager / /' From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist ?4 . Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 2001- 003 Date: February 21, 2001 On the February 26, 2001, City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -0023 submitted by Architectural Alliance (For Medtronic, Inc.) requesting Site and Building Approval for a 9,974 sq. ft. addition to the building located at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -0023 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their February 15, 2001 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. i Application Filed on 2 -1 -01 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 4 -2 -01 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2001 -003 Applicant: Architectural Alliance (For Medtronic, Inc.) Location: 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant, Architectural Alliance on behalf of Medtronic, Inc., is seeking Site and Building Plan approval for a 9,974 sq. ft. addition to the speculative industrial building located at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned I- 1.(Industrial Park) and is being combined with the two parcels to the south under Planning Commission Application No. 2001- 002 to create a large campus for Medtronic containing two buildings. The parcel under consideration is located to the north and east of Shingle Creek Parkway. It is bounded on the north by 69' Avenue; on the east by the Earle Brown Farm Apartments; on the south by the Medtronic parking facility and on the west by the speculative industrial building at 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway. Mr. Peter Vesterholt, Architect for the project, has submitt ed various information relating to this relatively minor addition to 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. The proposal involves a 9,974 sq. ft. addition which would be located within the loading dock area of the building. The purpose of the addition is to house mechanical equipment needed to support a Medtronic manufacturing function that will be located in the northeast comer of the building. The addition will be built in an area that currently is a paved portion of the service court or loading area for the building. It will be built to match the exterior of the existing building which is a painted concrete block. Medtronic, Inc. has recently acquired 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway where they have been leasing space. It is expected that Medtronic will continue to occupy more space in the facility as other non-Medtronic tenants eventually vacate their spaces as leases expire. As mentioned, Medtronic is combining the three parcels they own into one through the platting process, which will create a campus for their buildings. Further additions and possible site alterations may be made in the future. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site is unchanged. It is a shared access with the building at 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway which lies to the west. This access -is served by a median break in Shingle Creek Parkway at this location. This arrangement will continue. The site plan shows 401 parking spaces on the site for this building. Assuming a 25 percent office /75 percent industrial use of the building including the 9,974 sq. ft. addition proposed, 390 parking spaces would be required. The applicant has indicated Medtronic may have plans to either alter the occupancy 2 -15 -01 Page 1 i mix of the building or add space to it which may either increase the required parking or decrease the amount of available parking in the future. The fact that they are combining this lot with the other two Medtronic properties makes this site able to take advantage of surplus parking in the lot currently located between the two buildings. They have also discussed other possibilities for the future such as a covered walkway connecting the buildings. 'Such expansions /alterations would require future Site and Building plan approvals and are not part of the consideration before the Planning Commission at this time. Based on the above parking analysis, there will be sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed expansion and tenant mix for at least the immediate future. GRADING/DRAINAGE /UTILITIES There are no grading, drainage or utility changes proposed with this addition. The site is bound by B-612 curb and gutter and is served by storm sewer. No additional impervious surface is to be added and drainage will continue as it is. The City Engineer has indicated that no watershed review and approval is required with this proposed building addition. LANDSCAPING The City uses the Site and Building plan process to evaluate compliance with current zoning ordinance requirements. Landscaping is one of the items that are reviewed. The applicant has provided an analysis of all of the Medtronic properties, as they will be following the filing of the plat mentioned. The entire area is 19.13 acres and based on the landscape point system used by the Planning Commission to evaluate landscape plans, a total of 995.2 points are needed. An inventory of the properties shows a total of 1,088 points based on 950 points for deciduous trees, 132 points for coniferous trees and 6 points for shrubs. The distribution of points is not consistent with the point system, over 87 percent of all of the points are deciduous trees, 12 percent are coniferous trees and .6 percent are shrubs. The distribution of landscaping seems good throughout the site with a fare amount of landscaping along the 69' Avenue North green strip/buffer area. Island plantings and perimeter trees are also well dispersed. It is the percentage or mix of landscaping that is not totally consistent with the point system. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the landscape point system. It should be pointed out that this is a guideline that the Commission uses for evaluating landscaping plans. The Commission may wish to review this further in detail before making a recommendation with respect to the adequacy of the plans. BUILDING As previously mentioned, the building addition will be concrete block to match the existing building and will be located within the service court or loading dock area. The 9,974 sq. ft. addition represents a 5.93 percent increase to the footprint of the existing building and is considered a relatively minor addition. The applicant has discussed with the City's Building 2 -15 -01 Page 2 • Official and Fire Chief concerns regarding storage of lithium within the building. Lithium is a type of chemical that has a violent reaction to water and, therefore, the traditional fire sprinkling methods may not be appropriate. The same question has been addressed in the . Medtronic building at 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway and an acceptable method of fire detection and protection will need to be agreed upon by the Building Official and Fire Chief prior to issuance of permits for remodeling the building. These discussions are ongoing and will be addressed. LIGHTING /TRASH No changes are proposed for exterior lighting on the site and existing lighting seems appropriate. No new trash disposal facilities are indicated on the plan and are currently located within the loading area of this U- shaped building. Any roof top mechanical equipment will be expected to be screened from view. There is no public hearing required with this site and building plan application. RECOMMENDATION With the possible exception of some modifications to the landscaping plan if deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, the plans appear to be in order and approval of this application is recommended subject to at least 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 and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. The building's fire extinguishing system and detection system shall be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief and shall be monitored in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines. i 2 -15 -01 Page 3 h + ! � �' ;� iF" 7✓ u4 - � -A.ii s � < ^ . t T$' '- e + r . 4 III 's ���� •s• = =�� 1111 /►���, Ir • MEN Ion► �� /l�■ / ��♦ �� __ t y / � Y1 a �� all �iMR 2 4R, �. mm • _ � �i �� -� t ;_: fey t���� � ii � ! � � � � ° J ill ] i OX5 i►si•Nrq� nr• " "C►ii•rmiu nlloii+ �" vaaelww taiew•oox 8 a 3NNY'1d GHOA3�tl(18 ONV� 00 NOSNHOP 'S i vu JH O. if Tt 1 sss sill" w e Ogg " I I ' I NOI1104V IYVVNVI 1 411 n LP ' I I N , l III � � A MIS ,11 1111 1*f'" Ji' -1 \ \ \ \ \\ \\'\\\��\\�. \\��\� vi�� ,::.;:C;,;,i „�i;'i +?„ i °,'; ,d',l',';:: •,ir';',,.;. � 1 -- �' ;i 1 11 \\ \\\ e 1 1 \ \ \ \M Imb i-1 I • •' TNrin jr 1 'a \N\� i f 1 �. I niiii fl- I t ® I I O j A CV Hill cc ci I lt 112111131 gl AN - Jlllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll U 11 • _ II n IIIIIIIII II1111111 11111111111� = 1 I 1 1 I I �-•- -� �--•LJ 1 1 1 1 1 11 I I I I I� u O 67 y Li O , SHEET N07M AIE11TEttllAtltElllt i I i l i i T C..Jr j I i i i t _ j j i i i j i I I SHEET KEY NOTES ......,. rarer u+ �s.+wr I - -- I--- - - - - -- �- - - -= - I-- I------- 1- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - j j I j f ❑� �• w � a... .r ...... I I I I e r j I { r es�ree C c ....�.-...d, Mo*oik EGO r ---- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - ---� i I i i i I j Phm T" I �0 L.0� 7 ' - -- - 1 -- -- ---------- - - - - -- j- ---------- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- o m PLAN m i o i i i �.•,.� _� CD I F —_— _— _— _— •_— .---- .- ',_.— .— _— . —. —.— --- —., FI � F1oat FtM 1- .,, f I 1 P FLOOR PLAN 1.01 lilt O N'•N • f Sllf O • M WVAT9 HUM ol/crw 9n eo a ® = °` �(1EU 1Wil81d p+ �� { uuu IMPUR Alum I I I I I ! I NMCKIr Q Md19ASM "MUM Hume Q � o � 9oaaw+o o%. 4M1 new. 1= - • — q wm I ! I I I I I E I I � ° I I I I I I � I I ,� I I I, 1 I I � � � ! ! • rr 0 141M9fi � C9 b � � � b 1SrffHX3 r•r r.rr Ow rwvr ++ r•n O • N •fie Mrwfw O M r. wwt \.+ rrr Q � Y w +Oi �•�wwww.N Ot rw.rrww+w Oi . Milan 11011199V is O 83ION AM 1:" NOI11�V + � a , F�> (D] w r1yTr 1�w1 _ ^ I C—.� I w+rr..rw w�.wn it w.wwr.. `V I wy.w•..r+rsWl � � I !s'n�r 1gRTM3 !sr"ma 66 b •.+•aw.n.a " rw•r.w.u.n,. 1 3 / /tI1111ftIll3ll1111 suom 1.33 ' lVLWM 11C IM LTIIAL ALLIAII, TT if J �' ...Q -err] rr Yom• .� � Nfi/walWar — c76 b a O rr r0n*NCNTN NAM SECTIGN- DNY/CLEAN F Wrrr1Yrlw �r'a"& GENEFiAI. SHEET NOTES •••••w_ ® . KARMA SECTION - CLEAR MET KEY NOTES . rw►r�rw � � I I Ui .0 +rlrrwlra — T , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1• , 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 + ,,�q] ® WEST-EAST NU . -3 1EE710M • CRY/d.EAN AND CLEAN O. .wrw IY Q wlrra C-) o. Expansion rai— O NrL 0 - h Cnh.umn* Phm TWO. 7 1111 • 11 1 11111 Owll.r'.II. O W pjLDM SECTION+- MEDHA CAI f ' Strap &now f. a D Ef 4.01 i _ J Cr \ � t rQ I , \; a - I� 1 / z it Undscane Point.System City of Brooklyn Center 1. Landscape Plantings win be provided on the site based on the point system indicated below: Planting Type Maximum % - M inimum Size P {_ Tlanting of Points Shade trees (Deciduous, Maple, 2 W diameter 10 50 Linden, Ash, Oak, Locust, etc) Coniferous Trees (Pine, Spruce,. 5' height 6 40 Cedar) Decorative Trees (Russian Olives, 1" diameter • 1.5 35 Radiant Crab, Canada Red Cherry, etc) Shrubs (Dogwood, Spirea, 12" diameter .5 25 Mockorange, Juniper, Arborvitae, etc) Points Reauired Per AQ ' The following schedule will be used to determine the required number of points for a given site. The schedule is cumulative so that the first two acres of any site will require points on the basis of the column headed �3 the next eight acres will be computed on the basis of the column headed *2-10" and, area over ten acres will be computed on the basis of the column headed "10 + " . • Land Area of Site (Acres) Type of Develo Y _ 0-2 2 -10 10+ Office 100 80 60 Restaurant /Retai tservicelEntertainmentMotel 80 60 40 Light industrial 75 60 50 Heavy Industrial 60 50 40 Officelindustrial (O 25% office) 90 70 """ ••50 Multi- F amily Residential 90 •75 60 ; Six acre .offs= ,site = 2 acres @100 plus 4 acres @ 80 = 520opoints Fifteen acre retaillrestaurant a 2 acres @ 80 plus 8 acres @ 60 plus 5 acres @ 40 = 840 points 2. The above point •system in no way substitutes for the screening and buffer requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Plantings used for screening purposes will be accorded points, but fulfilling the point requirements will not obviate the requirements for screening. S. Mature existing trees will be accorded points on the -basis of the above point schedule. A bonus equal up to the full value of a given planting may be granted by the Commission for the preservation of large existing plantings. 4. All green areas on a site will be sodded except In areas where viable turf exists and Is totally undisturbed by . construction. The burden will be on the developer to prove at the time of a site inspection that such viable turf, in fact, exists and has been property maintained. 5. All greenstrips adjacent to an Interior property line will be a minimum of 5 ft. in width except in cases where special buffer provisions apply. Landscape Point System 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 FEBRUARY 15, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Sean Rahn, Rex Newman, Graydon Boeck, and Stephen Erdmann. Commissioners Dianne Reem and John Whitehead were absent and excused. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Nancy Czajkowski. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B JANAURY 11, 2001 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to approve the minutes of the January 11, 2001 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. TIME CAPSULE • Chair Willson explained he attended the time capsule ceremony. He thanked Mr. Warren and his staff for their time and effort in preparing the Planning Commission's information for the time capsule. They included a list of the Commission's duties and its current roster. They joined the other commissions in the selection of information. 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. 2001-002 (_HARRY S. JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. (FOR MEDTRONIC, INC.) Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2001 -002, a request from Thomas Hodroff on behalf of Harry S. Johnson Company, Inc. to seek Preliminary Plat approval to combine three contiguous parcels of land owned by Medtronic, Inc. at 6700 thru 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway into a single parcel of land approximately 19 acres in area. Mr. Warren stated he would like to present both applications together. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to describe the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 1/25/01 for Application No. 2001 -002 attached.) The proposed plan is to combine three parcels 2 -15 -01 Page 1 to create a two building campus for Medtronic in this area. Tract B is 477 595 s . ft. in area and g P q contains a 168,239 sq. ft. office /industrial building (6800 Shingle Creek Parkway). Tract C is 196,096 sq. ft. in area and contains a parking lot serving the Medtronic Promeon facility. Tract D is 156,967 sq. ft. in area and contains the 78,133 sq. ft. Medtronic Promeon building (6700 Shingle Creek Parkway). Section 35 -540 of the zoning ordinance requires multiple parcels of land to be combined through platting or Registered Land Survey when they are contiguous, under common ownership and serve a single development. Staff recommends approval subject to two conditions. Commissioner Boeck asked why the city does not have a utility easement on the easterly line on Tract D. He stated the adjacent building is close to that property line. He noted there may be a need in case of additional service to north. He suggested at least a 10 foot easement along the easterly line. He stated there is a electrical transmission line on the survey and a telephone box. He noted this is the best time to get one if it is ever needed. Mr. Warren responded he does not see a problem with that on the final plat. He stated they generally require five or ten foot easement along a property line. Commissioner Boeck stated he did not think it would interfere with the plan and that he would add another condition requiring a five -foot easement on the easterly side of the existing Tract D. APPLICATION NO. 2001-003 (ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE (FOR MEDTRONIC, INC.) Mr. Warren then presented Application No. 2001 -003, a request from Architectural Alliance on behalf of Medtronic, Inc. to seek Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 9,974 sq. ft. addition to the speculative industrial building located at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. He reviewed the staff report using overhead transparencies to describe the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 2/15/01 for Application No. 2001 -003 attached.) The proposed plan is to construct a 9,974 sq. ft. addition which would be located within the loading dock area of the building. The purpose of the addition is to house mechanical equipment needed to support a Medtronic manufacturing function that will be located in the northeast corner of the building. The addition will be built in an area that currently is a paved portion of the service court or loading area for the building. It will be built to match the exterior of the existing building, which is a painted concrete block. Staff recommends approval subject to six conditions. Commissioner Boeck asked why there would be two principal buildings on one parcel and if there is an ordinance that addresses this issue. Mr. Warren responded it is allowed under the city's ordinances. He stated it could not be done in a residential area, but is allowed in Commercial or Industrial zones. Commissioner Boeck asked if there would be any additional impervious surfaces with the expansion. Mr. Warren responded no since the area is already blacktopped. 2 -15 -01 Page 2 The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION 2001 -002 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2001 -002, at 8:16 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. Mr. Thomas Hodroff, a representative of the Harry S. Johnson Surveying Company, stated he is presenting the preliminary plat. Commissioner Boeck stated it seems to him there is a good possibility that Medtronic is going to get rid of both of these buildings and move out of the area. He noted experience indicates when there are two major buildings on one parcel, there are problems with the legal descriptions, financing, and in disposal of the property. He asked if there would be a problem having a lot 1 and lot 2 of the Medtronic building addition. He stated then each building could stand on its own and a future buyer does not have to try to describe them. Mr. Hodroff responded it seems always to be better to have one large lot and always request a lot split later if needed. He stated Medtronic may want to build a walkway in the future that would cross the lot line. He added if they expand the facility, they may need the additional parking from the lower lot. He stated the middle parking lot would be able to handle parking from both the north and south buildings. Commissioner Newman asked if section 35 -540 requires this combination of parcels anyway. Mr. Warren responded it does in theory but would not necessarily require a platting by Medtronic when it acquired the northern building. He stated Medtronic needs to do this for some of their expansion plans in the future. He noted his understanding is that even with the main corporate campus in Fridley, this Promeon facility would still continue. He added he does not think it is a matter of expanding only for the short term. Commissioner Boeck asked if Mr. Hodroff recommended that they come back before the Planning Commission for a lot split in the event the buildings are sold separately. Mr. Hodroff responded in the affirmative. He stated it gives Medtronic more flexibility. He noted it is usually easier to split a lot than to combine lots. Commissioner Boeck stated he thought a lot split is confined to parcels of lesser valuation. He asked about a possible additional ten -foot easement. Mr. Hodroff responded he could not address it without speaking to Medtronic. He stated it had been discussed with the City Engineer previously. He noted the Engineer had recommended not requiring easements that are not going to be used right away. He thanked Mr. Warren for his assistance. Mr. Peter Vesterholt, Architectural Alliance, introduced himself and Mr. Don Wolf, Medtronic Facilities Manager. i 2 -15 -01 Page 3 Mr. Wolf stated the site in Fridley s the corporate headquarters. He noted this site provides Y rP q P components for Medtronic facilities around the world. He added this is part of a project that invests a lot of money in this site for sophisticated manufacturing. He stated Medtronic purchased the building since they are definitely going to be at this site. He noted at a recent meeting he was told that Medtronic is in need of space in excess of 200,000 square feet. He added they are also looking at a neighboring building to possibly meet their space needs. Commissioner Newman asked about the use of lithium. Mr. Wolf responded that a task force of engineers has looked at this issue. He stated it resulted in changes in how they use lithium. He noted that now it is delivered in small pouches. He added moisture destroys it so they only open enough for one day of manufacturing. Mr. Warren stated there has been lithium on this site for over 25 years. He noted the Fire Department is very aware of the byproducts of lithium and where it is stored on the site. He stated it is stored in smaller quantities than it used to be stored. He noted he is not aware of any major problems or accidents in the 25 years that they have used it. Mr. Wolf stated they have a very active emergency response team. He noted the Fire Chief brings firefighters over once or twice a year to tour the facility and know how it is being handled and where it would be stored. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2001 -002. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to close the public hearing on Application 2001 -002, at 8:31 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Erdmann stated there was a requirement in 1979 to file the final plat. He asked if it would be a good idea to add a similar condition at this time to one of these applications. Mr. Warren responded does not feel the need to hold up a building permit on the addition for the filing of the plat. He stated they could go ahead with it regardless of the platting since all requirements have been met. He noted the plat was put together, the utility was moved, and a final plat was released to Medtronic to file in 1979. He added it is not known why it was not filed. He stated he thinks they would make a good faith effort to file it. He stated he has assurances from Mr. Wolf and others from Medtronic that the current plat will be filed 'in a timely manner. Chair Willson stated he recommends that a letter with a copy of the filing be sent to the city when it is completed. 2 -15 -01 Page 4 The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application ACTION TO APPROVE OF APPLICATION NO. 2001-002 (HARRY S. JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. (FOR MEDTRONIC, INC.) There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 2001 -002, submitted by Harry S. Johnson Company, Inc. (for Medtronic, Inc.) for Preliminary Plat approval to combine three contiguous parcels of land owned by Medtronic, Inc. at 6700 thru 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway into a single parcel of land approximately 19 acres in area, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinance. 3. The plans shall be modified to show a ten -foot drainage and utility easement along the easterly line of the existing Tract D. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Erdmann, Newman, and Rahn. The motion passed. The Council will consider the recommendation at its February 26, 2001 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. DISCUSSION ON APPLICATION NO. 2001 -03 Commissioner Newman stated he does not see the landscaping as an issue, especially if they have to destroy the current landscaping to make changes. He noted it could spoil what they have already done. Commissioner Rahn asked if there was going to be a trailer ramp or loading facility into the addition. Mr. Vesterholt responded the addition would just house equipment. He stated the other existing loading facilities of Medtronic would be utilized. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO APPROVE OF APPLICATION NO. 2001 -003 - (ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE FOR MEDTRONIC, INC.) There was a motion by Commissioner Erdmann, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 2001 -003, submitted by Architectural Alliance (for Medtronic, Inc.) for site and building plan approval to construct a 9,974 sq. ft. 2 -15 -01 Page 5 I� S addition to the speculative industrial building located at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway, 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 and drainage plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanic equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. The building's fire extinguishing system and detection system shall be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief and shall be monitored in accordance with chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines. Votin g in favor: Chair Willson Commissioners Boeck, Erdmann, Newman, and Rahn. The motion passed. The Council will consider the recommendation at its February 26, 2001 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 Mr. Warren stated he had discussed with the Park and Recreation Director concerning the expansion for remodeling of the City Hall /Community Center. He noted he wanted to review the plans with the Commission to see if the Commissioners feel that there needs to be a formal filing of a final site plan. He added since the Police Department no longer occupies the lower level of City Hall, staff is looking at remodeling. He stated there are issues with handicap accessibility and the restroom facility, which does not meet current requirements. He noted there would be no major expansions with respect to the complex, but there are some minor issues that he would review with them. He described the footprint of the existing City Hall. He added it is not fully handicapped accessible. He described the plans to modify the lower level of City Hall. He stated they are looking at an additional expansion where the garage currently is and putting in a new entrance that could access the lower level and upper level of City Hall. He noted they would add an elevator to access this level. He added it would be a two story elevated entrance. He stated the Park and Recreation 2 -15 -01 Page 6 offices would be located in the lower level of the Community Center. He noted they are looking at game rooms, etc. in the upper level where the offices are currently. He added more changes would be taking place in the interior and it has not been finalized. Commissioner Boeck asked about access between the two levels. Mr. Warren responded there would be an elevator access in the northeast corner. He stated the other elevator would remain. He asked if the Commission wanted a formal submission of a plan. He stated they have not required much in the way of formal approval for minor expansions. He noted that as he received more detail on the interior remodeling he would be happy to bring it to the Commission. Chair Willson stated they have an interest in it, but it does not have to be a formal process. Mr. en es well beyond what required. He Warr stated that in terms of parking what the have o at is re P g Y g Y q noted especially with 40+ less employees once the Police Department moved out Commissioner Rahn asked if there would be any opportunity for public testimony on it. Mr. Warren responded he did not know what the City Council plans to do. He stated there would be some concern by the public on what is to be done. He noted there were bond issues on the Police and Fire facilities. He added when they looked at a possible expansion in the plaza area there were problems in that area. He stated these buildings are sitting on the best soil on the site. He noted there is a lot of peat and the rest of the soil is basically muck. Commissioner Rahn stated that there needs to be an opportunity for public to comment. Chair Willson stated they would come before the City Council. Commissioner Rahn stated it should be a discussion item on the Planning Commission's agenda. Commissioner Newman stated the parking area could use some sprucing up. Mr. Warren stated there are no floor plans since it has not gone before the City Council. He noted the City Council would get public comments. He added there would be budgetary concerns, but he does not think they are looking at a bond issue. Commissioner Boeck stated it seems like a mute point for the Planning Commission. Mr. Warren stated he would be happy to continue to give updates in more detail when it is finalized. Commissioner Boeck stated the City Council would have to approve it before the Planning Commission due to budgetary concerns. Mr. Warren stated there is an application for the March 15 "'regular session, but it is unlikely that there would be a meeting in two weeks. 2 -15 -01 Page 7 There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Czajkowski Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 2 -15 -01 Page 8 City Council Agenda Item No. 9a MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 2001 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution for I- 94/694 Conceptual Plan Approval At its February 12, 2001 meeting, City Council received a staff report on Mn/DOT's I- 94/694 plan. Council action is needed to approve the conceptual plan. Background In general, the project consists of the reconstruction of the CR 81 and Broadway bridges, and reconstruction of the Hemlock Lane bridge and interchange; addition of a third lane from just west of Brooklyn Boulevard to Weaver Lake Road; and replacement of the pavement from approximately Dupont to Weaver Lake Road. Also part of the project would be the addition of some miscellaneous auxiliary lanes; construction of several storm water detention ponds; construction of a small amount of new noise wall; and rehabilitation (painting and repair) of the existing noise wall. Work in Brooklyn Center would likely not begin until Spring, 2003. Activities to Date Progress on this project has been relatively low -key. A Technical Advisory Committee consisting of local staff and Mn/DOT representatives met for about a year to discuss design issues. Mn/DOT then developed an Environmental Assessment and held an Open House in Brooklyn Center on January 18, 2001 in Constitution Hall. Mn/DOT has also held open houses in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. The purpose of the Open Houses was to provide the public with an opportunity to review preliminary plans for the improvements, to disseminate information, review the Environmental Assessment, and to gain public input. The Open Houses were lightly attended. In addition to the Open House, Mn/DOT has mailed project updates to over a thousand residents of Brooklyn Center. The City of Brooklyn Center has also recently mailed a letter summarizing the project and notifying residents that Council will be considering conceptual approval of the plan on February 26 th . Issues Many of the Brooklyn Center residents attending the Open House or corresponding with the Council and staff had concerns that Mn/DOT would acquire their homes to widen the freeway. They were assured by Mn/DOT staff that all the roadway work will occur within the existing right of way, with widening generally occurring towards the middle, grassy median rather than towards the noise walls. The Council and residents have expressed the most concern about two issues: location of the storm water ponds, and noise. Ponds Mn/DOT is no longer interested in Orchard Lane Park as a site for a pond. They continue to pursue two pond options: the North Memorial ambulance facility site, which is the Council's first choice, and a revised south side option. Initial investigations of the North Memorial site suggest that it has fewer environmental problems than was feared, however, North Memorial has been unwilling to consider selling a portion of the property to Mn/DOT. While that option is still alive, Mn/DOT staff has turned their attention to the south side option. You will recall that the south side option would require the acquisition of up to several homes east of Orchard Lane Park. Mn/DOT has recently revised this option to reduce or possibly even eliminate the loss of any homes. The revised option would construct a long, narrow pond in the right of way just east of Orchard Lane Park. The noise wall in that area would be relocated south between the pond and the property owners' back yards. The noise wall would likely be located on what was once excess freeway right of way that was turned back to the City. Some of the adjacent residents purchased the excess right of way between their back yards and the noise wall, and the City still owns some of the excess right of way. City Engineer Todd Howard and I recently met with Mn/DOT staff to explore the possibility of making "Chuck Pond" longer and . narrower. Making it longer and narrower would reduce the effectiveness of the storm water treatment, but Mn/DOT has agreed to review this concept to determine how much compromise can be made between treatment effectiveness and impact on local properties. Much more design work including groundwater investigation is required to determine if this is a feasible option. For that reason the proposed council resolution omits the approval of the pond location. Mn/DOT has told us that withholding approval of the pond location is acceptable, and will not compromise the ability of the project to go forward. Noise The noise study has been completed and the results are included in the Environmental Assessment. One area of new noise wall is suggested in the Brooklyn Center segment of the project, with no modifications other than painting and repairing to the remainder of the wall. The area of new wall would be located on the south side, from east of Xerxes Avenue to the Central Park noise wall. The noise sampling conducted for the Environmental Assessment showed that the sampling sites on both sides of the freeway were slightly higher than the daytime noise standard of 65 dB, ranging from 64.5 dB to 67.6 dB. Nighttime noise levels ranged from 63.4 dB to 67.6 dB. The nighttime standard is 55 dB. It is estimated that long -term noise is expected to increase 0 -2 dB; changes of less than 3 dB are considered inaudible. . The new pavement to be installed as a part of this project will`use a new type of surface finish that in other locations has resulted in a 1 -2 dB reduction in pavement noise. Mn/DOT's maximum wall/berm combination height is 20 feet; the wall in Brooklyn Center is about 18 -19 feet. It is Mn/DOT's policy not to add or change noise wall unless a reduction of at least 5 dB is achieved. To achieve that reduction, Mn/DOT would have to add ten feet onto the wall, tearing down the existing wall and replacing it with a 30 -foot wall. Mn/DOT is also required not to exceed a maximum expenditure of $3,250 per person per dB reduction. Mn/DOT staff will be present at the February 26` meeting to address concerns and answer questions regarding noise barriers. Council Action Mn/DOT requires approval of the conceptual plan from local governments. Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park recently approved the conceptual plan and Mn/DOT is awaiting Brooklyn Center approval. Approval of the I- 94/694 Final Plan is also required before construction can begin. Staff is recommending adopting the attached resolution approving the I- 94/694 Conceptual Plan. • 204.5 ° A ______► it IA 0 _ cmrc I ttta caEV 1 ,-S-BL ° I ° k I &t 10� pA a I ac • J - 10 p I 1 k Lot 0 1 • � I Ieri � 0 r �� O - 0 S tai A R \ * 0 c4 c it C 612 *= O` �Qp�y������ ° T ---" == ___ _ - _ - .._ - "' 3,• coat In _ CURB OWN RAMP C 04 -- O 1 i = T 0 -- -------------- -- ---- -• ---" - , 10 .e .. O 0 n I- =-... p000 -�\ _ B 0 0 © GAR is 0 0 _" 0 0 r +-� GAR 0 cAR 40 0 0 0 + 0 0 ( O /r 0 - %� I 4216 r I' 0 0 ° 0 Y 00 0 eit C GAR La GAR 0 1 P 4230 i ` 42z4 , _ u I _ S � I S 0 l GAP 4300 i 1_5 F tT ' 0 tI __ _ - - -rw 0 0 0 -1 0 Y © r� GAR GAR © r 1 GAR 4712 I 4 S-F 0 I-S F , I I I 0 O 1 0 0 817 ► r 4316 1.5-F 0 11 I O' 0 0 �C 0 , 0 GAR W O 0 I I 4 0 i I 1 s _ F \ ' 0 , 1� 1 _ 0 0 1- 0 0 a _ 4,06 F J I \ \�1 \� 0 G L. ° 0 0 0 0 k AR GAR O Y 0 4415 1452E �\ 1_5-F I I 0 m CAR f? 'r' ,_s F b 0 Ir m ti j l 0 0 GAR 11 4306 4500 0 I.- - 0 O a° °� __-� COI ID 0 * 0 I I _ 1 k GAP 0 �0 I I 4512 II 1.5 -Ba I_S-F 0 W 0 m m 1\ Q 0 \ GAR 4600 I I lss F 1 -yBN I I 0 0 J o 0 OI \ ( 4 lz u 4606 t_S-F VA 0 0 I \ 1 0� �, NO 1 (� I I 66 TH AV- uu��6 -�- V�� I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE I- 94/694 CONCEPTUAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Commissioner of The Department of Transportation has prepared a Conceptual Plan for the improvement of a part of Interstate 94/694 within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, from the western City limits to Dupont Avenue; and seeks approval thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that said Conceptual Plan for the improvements of said Interstate within the corporate limits is hereby approved except as to location of a storm water detention pond in the segment between the west corporate limits and Brooklyn Boulevard. The City Council reiterates its preference for a pond on the north side, designated as "Arnold Pond" on said Conceptual Plan. 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. 9b MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2001 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Howard, City Engineer I I� SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement for Improvement Project Nos. 2002 -01, 02, and 03, Southwest Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements and the France Avenue Relocation Project On December 11, 2000, City Council authorized the solicitation of professional service proposals for the Southwest Area Reconstruction and the France Avenue Relocation Project. Proposals have been sought and received from four qualified engineering firms for design and construction management services for the subject projects. Council action is necessary to authorize a professional service agreement. Background The Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOT) Memorandum of Understanding ® delegated the design and construction of the France Avenue Relocation from the State to the City of Brooklyn Center with Mn/DOT being responsible for reimbursing the City for engineering costs related to the improvements. Accordingly, the City sent out a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the France Avenue Relocation. The RFP also includes engineering services for the Southwest Area Reconstruction Project. A map showing the streets to be included in the Southwest Project is attached. A second neighborhood project proposed for 2002, the Garden City South neighborhood, including Xerxes from CR10 to I- 94/694, would be engineered by staff. Discussion A detailed RFP (attached) was developed and forwarded to four area consultants that possess the expertise in road design, project management and construction inspection: SRF Consulting Group, SEH, Inc., TKDA, and Loucks Associates. All four consultants responded to the City's request with proposals that were reviewed by Director of Public Works Diane Spector and myself for responsiveness, qualifications, and experience. It is our recommendation that the proposal submitted by SEH, Inc is the most responsive and best meets the needs of the City. Mn/DOT staff has also reviewed the proposals and concurred with the recommendation of SEH, Inc. Two of the most important factors that we used to evaluate the proposals were experience with the Mn/DOT cooperative agreement process and the extent to which the firm would be able to "take the project and run with it." We have two key concerns: the Mn/DOT cooperative • agreement process is lengthy, detailed, and very bureaucratic. The Project Manager must have experience working through this process, the more the better. One of the reasons this is important is that the Brooklyn Boulevard projects and other projects in 2001 will take a considerable staff effort, leaving staff little time to deal with the details of back and forth plan review by many different departments in Mn/DOT. Another reason why this is important is that the CP Rail portion of the project is expected to permanently close the existing France Avenue crossing by mid -2002. Our goal is to have construction of the relocated roadway essentially complete by the time this occurs. This leaves a very tight timeframe in which to design the project, obtain permits, acquire right of way, conduct public design review, and complete the 12- 16 week Mn/DOT /cooperative agreement process. Other factors used to review the proposals included the overall qualifications of the consultant team, the demonstrated understanding of the project and its potential complexities, and the adequacy of the proposed work plan, timeline, and hours. While cost is certainly a factor in the selection of any consultant for City work, in this case two of the four consultants submitted realistic work plans for approximately the same cost to the City. Ultimately, the recommendation for acceptance of the proposal submitted by SEH, Inc. is based on the firm's thorough understanding of various elements of the projects, experience, and qualifications. The Project Advisor, Glen Van Wormer, has considerable personal experience with the issues and agencies involved in the France Avenue Relocation project. The Project Manager, Sue Mason, has completed 5 Mn/DOT cooperative agreement projects in the last 5 years. Ms. Mason has experience completing projects ranging from trunk highways and county roads to municipal state aid and neighborhood streets. Recently Ms. Mason served as Project Manager on the Xenia Avenue /Turners Crossroad project in Golden Valley that received the 2000 Project of the Year award by the City Engineers Association of Minnesota. Ms. Mason also managed the 69 Avenue Parkway project in Brooklyn Center which won the 1994 Project of the Year award from CEAM. She has also managed other projects in Brooklyn Center including 57 Avenue and adjacent local streets, West River Road, and 69 Avenue from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont. Scope of Services The scope of services to be provided include for the Southwest Area Reconstruction and the France Avenue Relocation includes the following: • Data Collection/Surveying • Road and Utility Design • Landscaping • Wetland Delineation • Storm Water Routing • Environmental Permitting (PCA, WMO, Army Corps, etc.) • Coordination with CP Rail • Coordination with Mn/DOT • Construction Inspection • Public Information and Education The ro osal includes all work necessary for the France Avenue Relocation project with the p p rY p J exception of real estate acquisition and development of the work plan through the Joslyn Site with the PCA, which will be handled by other consultants. The proposal does include preparing the necessary plans and exhibits for real estate acquisition and PCA review. City Staff would be involved with the neighborhood meetings, development of the assessment rolls, and project mailing for the Southwest Area Reconstruction Project. Costs For budgetary and planning purposes the costs of the professional services are summarized below: Item Estimated Amount France Avenue Design $133,000 France Avenue Construction $ 58,000 Southwest Area Design $226,000 Southwest Area Construction $200,000 The estimated professional services for construction costs are based upon a percentage of estimated final construction costs; the actual cost will vary depending on the services required, the contractor, the weather, and other circumstances. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, professional service costs for the France Avenue Connection would be borne by Mn/DOT. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution that authorizes the execution of a professional services agreement with SEH, Inc. Review of Southwest Area Proposals Loucks Associates Personnel: relevant experience, some coop agreement experience Project understanding: good Did not detail cooperative agreement process in tasks & schedule: likely add -on Included feasibility report Included right of way services Seems light on construction observation hours Did not break out cost estimate between France Avenue and 2002 construction Design: $367,310 Constr: $214,530 TKDA Personnel: no rinci le or VP assigned to provide quality control; MSA experience but no p P � p q Y p significant cooperative agreement experience Project understanding: basic Did not detail cooperative agreement process in tasks & schedule: likely add -on Hours high on surveying and low on plan development and preparation Assumes City staff would complete MSA, cooperative agreement paperwork: likely significant add -on Obtained a proposal from Wenck for wetland delineation, but did not account for costs in proposal (approx $10,000) Single- person construction observation rather than team (preferable) proposed by others: likely add -on for additional hours construction observation France 2002 Area Design: $67,900 $180,600 Constr: $60,200 $205,400 . SEH, Inc. Personnel: relevant experience, extensive cooperative agreement experience Project understanding: excellent, obtained as- builts to study before preparing proposal Includes feasibility report Very comprehensive enumeration of tasks & hours Appears to be some double- counting of hours between France Ave & 2002 project work schedules Includes hours for storm drainage system design for both France and the Ryan Lake pond Estimate of hours for plan and bid documents high France 2002 Area Design: $133,000 $226,000 Constr: $68,000* $200,000* *Estimated as percent of construction SRF Consulting Group Personnel: relevant experience, possible coop agreement experience, not specifically mentioned Project understanding: basic, little detail This is basically a courtesy proposal France 2002 Area Design: $98,615 $291,439 Constr: $79,908 $328,900 2/21/01 Us th WE WE ..........: ,.:: III■ IIIt1 low oil AIM 4� t J 5 ' p r •1 � t '�' a� : 1 Ilk M_ T Vii_ � r 1 `k -..�`� ..� ��' � ri � • �( , x ,:� ���� ���r• �J :Y� :111 _ µ AM A Ah AL • do .•' . • A- INVER9403.00 Printed 0W202001 FILE: SCHEDBC `FranceArrenue Rettaln4and Qq2: Streefi ?brttctor - w!�'gl+c�ed.cte >;;< prepared February 19.2001 Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. summer ru SIVIM .. ra. ,... ..:. �..,,:.. v '17tsiclii;•:E . ... M .J y� c . v . � Aprk.... ^. : -ranee Avenue Design . X002 Design Preoarr Ex ibiC i`rance Ave. R/W Process X X x R.-,n ud — — IMer t wl'h P'op.!3W42!g ! 2iseusa Dea - ?ut Vic 1 eat•,g l "start Kk k CM Ca t Shariry Meeting X X X X % Prk ate JtlIID/ M3etl1 p % IMeetings Met tin 20CZ A blic Me tlnL 2042 itx ce ..,. IMnI rO7 De i n.Ner tl —,Agency - --� Sta a A6J X IMnDOT Review �ikLliud,W irlriiiuWuauawkrdul Re, law 3tanA6i Apprcral Plan Revisions — t9M/ Certificate - — :ooperative Agreement X % Execute Agreement City Mn M X Council Approve Plans and Opon Authorize Ad for Bids — ! — — x a as X x Advertise and — __ Sta t Amur lsin Receive Bids —' x Award Contract — Su�ai, Ca -iple to Jul- 20 2 Cornple le France AvenueC- Tlectlon _...._,_-- .,.....- ._.,.. .._.-' ---. -.. - - Construction — sas 1 2002 Neighborhood Construction f - d pus � _ ,.,. x� d a n REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for FRANCE AVENUE RELOCATION 2002 SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD STREET RECONSTRUCTION Issued by City of Brooklyn Center Public Works Department January 29, 2001 • i 1 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (attachment 1) for the construction of the France Avenue Connection as shown on Attachment 2. The City has also programmed adjacent neighborhood streets for reconstruction. The neighborhood streets as shown on attachment 3 include approximately 2.25 miles of local streets and 4200 linear feet of Municipal State Aid roads. Both the neighborhood reconstruction project and the France Avenue Connection projects are scheduled for 2002 construction. Accordingly, the City of Brooklyn Center seeks proposals from qualified consultants for professional services necessary for completion of the following tasks: FRANCE AVENUE RELOCATION Identify required real estate (real estate to be acquired by City of Brooklyn Center) Prepare plans & specifications for the relocation of France Avenue to meet state aid approval Trail design along the France Avenue connection Soils exploration Coordination with railroad, Mn/DOT Landscaping Weltland delineation, permitting/mitigation PCA permitting Design of the new 47 to 48 Avenue connection Contract administration Construction staking and inspection 2002 SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD STREET RECONSTRUCTION Survey data collection Sewer televising Identify storm water treatment for outfall into Ryan Lake Soils exploration Existing utility evaluation Public involvement meetings (5) Preparing plans and specifications Storm sewer design Contract administration Construction staking The professional service elements in the proposal should be separated into two projects: the France Avenue relocation and the 2002 Southwest Neighborhood Street Reconstruction. Each project should be organized in the areas of 1) Design phase services, and 2) Construction phase services. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION • Mapping/Data Collection — Mn/DOT will provide the selected firm with a preliminary layout design file (English Units) of the France Avenue Relocation. • Preliminary Design — The City will provide as -built utility information to the selected firm. Topographic information is not available outside of the France Avenue Relocation area. Costs for obtaining topographic data should be included in the proposal. • Wetland/Soils — The France Avenue Relocation Project will likely impact a wetland. The proposal should include any soils investigation testing and any additional agency coordination and permitting for wetland impacts. The Shingle Creek Watershed is the LGU for wetland impacts. • Trail — Two trail segments are to be included. One trail segment from the TH 100 Twin Lakes Bridge into Twin Lake Park, and the other following the 50 Avenue and Azelia Avenue and extensions to Lakebreeze Avenue. • Real Estate — The proposal should include all work needed to identify the necessary real estate for the France Avenue Connection. • PCA permitting — The France Avenue Connection crosses the Joslyn property. The Joslyn property is a de- listed superfund site. • CP rail will be constructing a bridge over Highway 100. Coordination with the railroad will be required. • Mn/DOT — The project will involve close coordination with Mn/DOT and the TH100 main line project to be constructed in 2003. • Public Involvement — The City will conduct the majority of the public involvement process of the project. Some cost for graphics and attendance at the neighborhood meetings and public hearing should be included in the proposal. Any time necessary for attending meetings with Mn/DOT, PCA, the railroad or other agencies should be accounted for in the proposal. • Contract Documents — The proposal should assume that only one set of drawings will be required for the project which includes the France Avenue Connection and the Southwest Neighborhood Street Reconstruction. i TIMETABLE The J ro'ect milestones are as follows: p ITEM DATE Begin France Ave Relocation Design March 2001 Identify Required Real Estate April 2001 Neighborhood Street Data Collection September 2001 1 St Neighborhood Info Meeting November 2001 Plans and Specifications Complete February 2002 Construction Start April 2002 France Avenue Connection Complete July 2002 Southwest Neighborhood Complete September 2002 The proposal should include a detailed project schedule that meets the above dates and allows for agency coordination and Mn/DOT review. PROPOSAL CONTENTS The following will be considered the minimum contents of the proposal: 1. A restatement of the project tasks to demonstrate the responder's view of the project. 2. An outline of the responder's background and experience with similar projects. Identify personnel to conduct the project and detail their training and work experience. No personnel assigned to the project will be permitted without approval of the City. 3. A detailed work plans identifying the work tasks to be accomplished and estimated budget hours to expend on each task and subtask. The work plan shall identify the deliverables at key milestones in the project as well as any other services to be provided by the City. 4. A listing of names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least three (3) references for which the respondent has performed similar work. FEES AND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT The proposal shall state the total estimated fee and itemized breakdown of specific tasks for all of the professional services proposed by the consultant in response to the City's Request for Proposal. The proposal shall also include a schedule of hourly billing rates for each category of professional, technical and clerical employees. Specifically, provide an hourly rate for each employee who may be actively involved. Also include rates of miscellaneous charges, such as testing, equipment charges, copies and mileage. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Two (2) copies of the proposal should be submitted to: . Diane Spector, Director of Public Works 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 No later than 4:30 pm on Tuesday, February 20, 2001. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Todd Howard, City Engineer, is the Project Manager for this improvement and may be contacted directly at (763) 569 -3332 for requests concerning any available mapping, utility as -built records or other pertinent background information. LIMITATIONS This Request for Proposal does not commit the City of Brooklyn Center to award a contract and costs incurred in the preparation n of this request, or to pay p p q procure a contract for services or p supplies. The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source or to cancel in part or its entirety this Request for Proposal if it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to do so. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2002 -01, 02, AND 03, SOUTHWEST AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND THE FRANCE AVENUE RELOCATION PROJECT WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center has approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Transportation for the Relocation of France Avenue; and WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center has requested and received professional service proposals for the Southwest Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility project and the France Avenue Relocation Project; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to accept the Proposal as submitted by the firm SEH, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The City Manager and Public Works Director are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a professional services agreement with SEH, Inc. 2. All costs associated with this agreement shall be accounted for in the Local State Aid fund. 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. • I • City Council Agenda Item No. 9c 470 Pillsbury Center Kennedyl 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 Gracxven (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax H A R T ER ED http: / /www.kennedy- graven.com CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 email: clefevere @kennedy - graven.com January 30, 2001 Mr. Michael McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 RE: Seizure of Barking Dogs Dear Mike: It has been suggested that the City's ordinances be amended to authorize the police department to impound barking dogs. Such a practice to deal with barking dogs is appealing for several reasons. First, it would obviously be effective and bring immediate relief from the annoyance suffered by neighbors. Second, addressing barking dog problems by other means, through the court process, is time consuming and not always successful. Nevertheless, it appears that few cities have taken this course of action. Only two cities have been identified that have ordinances authorizing the police to impound barking dogs. I have contacted the attorneys for both of those cities, Minnetonka and Coon Rapids, and was told that neither cit'' hac Pier ilr._pounded a doo, - under the a„thnri of that ordinance, Despite the understandable frustration and annoyance felt by the citizens in the neighborhood of barking dogs, I would not recommend this course of action to the City for several reasons, some of which are practical, and some of which are legal. The practical reasons for declining to adopt an ordinance authorizing impoundment of barking dogs include the following: 1. Seizing dogs exposes the City to potential liability. 2. Seizing dogs can result in injury to police officers. 3. Seizing dogs can result in injury to dogs or to escape of dogs. CLL- 192657vl BR291 -4 Mr. Michael McCauley Janua ry 30, 2001 Page 2 of 4 in the ordinance code may create an e on the 4. Including such a provision y art of p p persons annoyed by barking dogs that the dogs will be seized. Therefore, if the City does not seize a dog, the police department may be accused of not doing its job. Citizens may attempt to pressure the City into seizing dogs, because seizure is authorized by the ordinance even when the ma olice department personnel not feel that it is warranted or P p p Y advisable. 5. People often have great emotional attachments to their pets. Although pets are regarded under - the l aw as p eisonai property, the seizure of pets ma genefaie a great deal of hostility toward the City and the police department. 6. Once dogs are seized, the costs of impoundment will begin to mount, and the owner may not have funds available to redeem the dog. This places the City in the position of either continuing to incur the costs of housing the dog or destroying the dog. Given the legal concerns described below, destroying an impounded dog that has been seized because of its barking may not be advisable. The City has been placed in the position of dealing with an impounded dog whose owner does not have the funds to redeem the dog in the past. • The legal issue associated with the seizure of a barking dog relates to the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions. A good description of the legal problem associated with impounding an animal such as a barking dog is found at Carrera v. Bertania (CT. App. Cal., 1976), 63 Cal. App. Y 721, 134 Cal. Rptr. 14. In that case an animal control officer entered private property and took possession of farm animals. These animals had, shortly before the seizure, been running at large on private property and next to a public highway, and the animals appeared to be "very hungry, poor, starved ". The owner was told by officers that her animals were being impounded for running at large and fnr lir�u :�T3.�, r�v�l +. �,^, t, iP.�• on the lec*a� �iR1 of tho rite to ir;� n� r14# ±hP ar�;mzlc �r ae va�y' b b � D.a_ > -- - conducted prior to the seizure. In the discussion of the case, the court noted the following: Where a person's property is taken by the government, the due process clause of the 14`'' Amendment requires some form of notice and hearing. ... Absent extraordinary circumstances justifying resort to summary procedures, the hearing must take place before the property is taken.... If the right to notice and a hearing is to serve its full purpose, then it is clear that it must be granted at a time when the deprivation can still be prevented. At a later hearing, an individual's possessions can be returned to him if they were unfairly or mistakenly taken in the first place. Damages may even be awarded to him for the wrongful deprivation. But no later hearing and no damage award can undue the fact that the arbitrary taking that was subject to the right of procedural due process has already CLL- 192657v1 BR291 -4 Mr. Michael McCauley January 30, 2001 . Page 3 of 4 occurred.... Moreover, the fact that the deprivation may be temporary does not alter the need for due process. ... Thus, even though the impoundment fees properly can be classified as payments to reimburse the counties for the cost of seizing, feeding and housing the animals, the holding and consequent deprivation to appellant of her right to possession of the animals constituted a taking of her property. Regardless of how soon appellant might have been able to pay the costs of impoundment, the seizure of the animals activated the due process requirements of notice and a hearing. ... , the lack of a meritorious defense by the owner does not obviate the necessity of a notice and hearing.... Therefore, even though the appellant was probably guilty of permitting some of her livestock to run at large in violation of county ordinance code.... and of failure to care for her animals in violation of Penal Code, ... she nonetheless was entitled to a hearing prior to the seizure of her animals. ... The formality and procedural requirements for a hearing will vary according to the competing interests of the government and the citizen. Procedural due process does not require a trial before a court. A proceeding before an administrative officer or board is adequate if the basic requirements of notice and opportunity for hearing are met. The court acknowledged that there were circumstances where the summary seizure of animals without a prior hearing was justified. The court cited examples such as an animal that has strayed onto a public highway, a dangerous animal that ' has escaped from an enclosure, or a starving animal that must be cared for in a humane way. However, I do not believe that a court would regard a dog that was barking to be creating a sufficient hazard to the public safety to justify seizure of private property without a prior hearing. The court determined that the ordinances in .th (V P' arrara case that anthori??rl the m nnnnr�ment of - f - farm a animal ? V7f11C1»t ? prior - i l0 hearing were constitutionally invalid as violative of the 14' Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although we have not exhausted all avenues of legal research on this subject, other cases we found dealing with animals were consistent with the principles described above, and we found no cases in which the court determined that seizing a barking dog without a prior hearing was constitutionally permissible. Therefore, for the reasons noted above, I would not recommend that the Council adopt an ordinance authorizing the police department to impound barking dogs without a prior hearing. cLL- 192657vl BR291 -4 Mr. Michael McCauley January 30, 2001 Page 4 of 4 Please let me know if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:lh cc: Chief of Police Joel Downer r - CLL- 192657vl BR291 -4 i City Council Agenda Item No. 9d Office of the City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk jww,_�fw� DATE: February 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Mayoral Appointment to Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is a human services planning and coordinating agency serving the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Corcoran, Crystal, Dayton, Golden Valley, Hanover, Hassan, New Hope, Maple Grove, Osseo, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, and Rogers since 1972. The goals of the Council are to improve access to human services for area residents, raise awareness of human service needs, and coordinate and assist in planning for needed human services in the community. The Advisory Commission is composed of citizen representatives appointed for two -year terms by their respective City Council. As an Advisory Commissioner, representatives are asked to attend one Advisory Commission meeting per month and serve on one Commission committee or task force during the year. One vacancy exists on the Advisory Commission with a term expiration of December 31, 2003. Notice of vacancy on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post on January 17, 2001. Notice was posted at City Hall and Community Center and aired on Cable Channel 16 from January 11 through February 12, 2001. A letter was sent to those persons who previously had submitted an application for appointment to a Brooklyn Center advisory commission informing them of the vacancy and requesting that they call the City Clerk if they are interested in applying for the commission. They were given the choice of either reapplying or having their application previously submitted considered. Notices were also sent to current advisory commission members. Attached for City Council Members only is a copy of the application received: Elizabeth Davis 6936 France Avenue North A letter was sent to the applicant notifying her that her application for appointment would be considered at the February 26, 2001, City Council meeting. Other attachments include: 1) Procedures for filling commission vacancies adopted by the City Council on March 27, 1995. 2) Memorandum from Mayor Kragness indicating her nomination. Recommended Council Action: Motion by Council to ratify the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission nomination by Mayor Kragness with term expiring December 31, 2003. 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 City of Brooklyn Center Procedures for Filling Commission /Task Force Vacancies Adopted by Council 3 /27/95 The following process for filling commission/task force vacancies was approved by the City Council at its March 27, 1995, meeting: Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as follows: 1. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City Council action is taken; 2. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper; 3. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory commissions; 4. Applications for Commission membership must be obtained in the City Clerk's office and must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk; 5. The City lerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Mayor and City tY P pP Y Council; 6. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's application form in the City Council agenda materials for the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented; 7. The City Council, by majority vote, may approve an appointment at the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented. PROCEDUR.CC City of Brooklyn Center Office of the Mayor A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmember Kay Lasman Councilmember Ed Nelson Councilmember Robert Peppe FROM: Myrna Kragness, Mayor DATE: February 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission Appointment As outlined in our policy for filling commission vacancies, I would request ratification from Council Members for the nomination of Elizabeth Davis, 6936 France Avenue North, to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission with term expiring December 31, 2003. 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 City Council Agenda Item No. 9e 03r City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Las an, Nelson, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: February 22, 2001 SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Request to Place 10 Units in Brooklyn Center Attached please find correspondence from the Metropolitan Council to Brad Hoffinan regarding the Metropolitan Council's Family Affordable Housing Program. This program is being undertaken under the Hollman Consent Decree in which the City of Minneapolis Housing Authority destroyed public housing and agreed to place scattered site locations to disperse a concentration of poverty. Metropolitan Council is to lace u to 10 units in the Community. The specific request from the Metropo C p p t3. ' One of the significant impacts of their proposal is that the property would be exempt from the payment of real estate taxes. There would be some payment in lieu of taxes, however that would be limited to ten percent of the gross rents charged to each family. If the Metropolitan Council acquired ten single - family houses in Brooklyn Center we could see a loss of between 1.3 and 1.5 million dollars in taxable property. Additionally we would lose the growth in value on that same 1.3 to 1.5 million dollars. These properties would not be paying taxes for school bond referenda or City bond referenda such as the debt for the construction of the police and fire stations. The Metropolitan Council representatives had one meeting with Mr. Hoffman that was followed up by the letter of February 9'. Staff has obviously had little time to digest this request, nor has the Community, Planning Commission, and City Council had an opportunity to receive information and have public discussions regarding this proposal. As you are well aware, if the City were to undertake a public project to create 1.5 million dollars in additional real estate value through the use of tax increment financing or other development tools, the City would be required to go through a process of public notice and hearings and take public input into consideration before undertaking the project. It may be similarly appropriate then to have public input and review of a proposal to remove 1.3 to 1.5 million dollars in taxable property from the City if there was any interest in entertaining the request from the Metropolitan Council. 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 Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future 9 February 2001 Mr. Brad Hoffman Director of Community Development City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2100 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me to discuss the Council's Family Affordable Housing Program (FAHP). Please let this letter serve as the Metropolitan Council's formal request to the City of Brooklyn Center to participate in the Metropolitan Council's Family Affordable Housing Program. Specifically, we are asking that Brooklyn Center approve and execute the enclosed Cooperation Agreement that allows for the placement of up to 10 units in your community. There are several benefits to the citizens of Brooklyn Center in participating in the Family Affordable Housing Program: ➢ Quality improvements will be made to all properties purchased by the Council, thus improving the quality of the overall housing stock. ➢ Thirty percent of all Brooklyn Center FAHP units will be leased to Brooklyn Center residents! ➢ Participation in FAHP will potentially gain additional points on upcoming transportation funding applications Brooklyn Center submits to the Metropolitan Council for consideration. Y Upon request, Brooklyn Center will be provided with technical services to help address planning for senior housing needs. ➢ Upon request, the Council will give priority to requests for project -based Section 8 rental assistance for senior housing development(s) in Brooklyn Center! Regulations no longer require rehabilitation, providing for the simplified conversion of existing property. ➢ Residents of Brooklyn Center will be provided with long -term, quality, work -force housing for families. Brooklyn Center residents will not be displaced as the Council will only purchase vacant units or units for sale by their owner occupant. ➢ FAHP units will be rental housing that is professionally managed, with resident screening that will help ensure residents have a successful rental experience. Y Appropriate services will be provided to residents, particularly in the area of job attainment and job enhancement. ➢ The Metropolitan Council will work with Brooklyn Center staff to ensure acquisition efforts do not interfere with redevelopment plans or opportunities. As you know, the Metropolitan Council is committed to working with cities in cooperative, incentive based partnerships. In an effort to complete a potential total of 200 units, we are approaching cities throughout suburban Anoka, Ramsey and Hennepin Counties to partner with us on this critical new • " Please see attached Fact Sheet for detailed information. 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 (651) 602 -1000 Fax 602 -1550 TDD /TTY 291 -0904 Metro Info Line 602 -1888 An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Brad Hoffman 9 February 2001 Page Two initiative. Time is of the essence as the deadline for completion of these units is April 2002. In addition to the Fact Sheet and sample Cooperation Agreement, I have enclosed a sample resolution for consideration by the Brooklyn Center City Council. We would appreciate the City Council taking formal action on our request by the end of February or very early March. There are many benefits to FAHP participation by Brooklyn Center. If you need any further information, please contact me at 651.602.1345. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, METROPOLITAN CO - CIL t 1 r Ceci e)�edor Associate Director Special Projects /cmb Enclosures i cc: Michael McCauley Tom Bublitz Elizabeth Ryan Caren Dewar Jay Lindgren Ted Mondale Council Member Todd Paulson • Metropolitan Council . Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM FACTSHEET What is the Family Affordable Housing Program? The Metropolitan Council's Family Affordable Housing Program (FAHP) is an affordable family rental housing program. This is one tool Brooklyn Center and other suburban cities can utilize to help address the critical and escalating need for more affordable housing units. Where will the FAHP be implemented? The Council hopes to partner with and execute Cooperation Agreements with several suburban municipalities in suburban Anoka, Hennepin and Ramsey counties. How many units will the Council acquire? At this time, the Council is in receipt of funding to acquire and improve approximately 50 units. The Council has been asked to complete 150 to 170 additional units, and is therefore seeking approval to acquire up to 20 units in each municipality. What types of units will the Council acquire? • The Council will focus its acquisition efforts on single family homes, town homes, condominiums, and duplexes. In some cases the Council may elect to buy residential structures containing up to eight units. Unit sizes will range from two to five bedrooms. How will the FAHP be implemented? In order to avoid the unnecessary relocation of Brooklyn Center families, the Council will acquire residential properties for sale by their owner - occupants. At this time, the Council will only purchase multi - family rental dwellings if all units are vacant. The Council has engaged a real estate professional to assist in the identification of potential properties. The Council has established "Unit Location Criteria" (Attachment A) to serve as a guide to the Council's acquisition efforts. In addition, the Council will not buy properties in census tracks that are "impacted" by race or poverty Once a Cooperation Agreement has been executed, the Council will work with Brooklyn Center staff to identify appropriate areas in which to focus acquisition efforts. The Council wants to coordinate its efforts with city activities to ensure, for example, that it does not acquire properties a city plans to acquire for redevelopment purposes. Who will own the FAHP units? The Council will be responsible for and directly own all FAHP units. . t Census tracks may not have a poverty population of 12.2% or more, nor may they have minority population greater that 28.68 %. The Council will identify, and subsequently notify municipalities, of any ineligible census tracks. Family Affordable Housing Program Fact Sheet 9 February 2001 Pagel of 3 Who will manage the FAHP units? The Council will retain a professional property management company to provide day to day property management services. Additionally, Council staff will provide professional asset management to ensure all units are managed and maintained according to Council standards and are long -term community and neighborhood assets. What are the Council's property management standards ?? In addition to providing quality affordable rental housing, the Council wants to ensure that its housing is a strong asset to communities. It is our goal that neighbors and other community members cannot ascertain by either the maintenance of the housing, nor by the behavior of residents, that the home is affordable rental housing. Rather, we plan to ensure that it is another spoke in the wheel of quality stable housing that helps provide a quality, stable community. We will be responsive and responsible to our residents and communities in ensuring that this goal is continually realized. Who will live in the FAHP Units? Up to 30% of all FAHP units in each municipality may be leased based upon local preferences. To that end the Council will notify families on the Council's Section 8 waiting list for Brooklyn Center. These units are designated "Incentive Units ". i b Since the acquisition and operation of the FAHP units will be funded y federal funds made available under the Hollman consent decree, 70 % of the units will be made available to Minneapolis families whose rental units were demolished under the consent decree or otherwise are affected by the consent decree. If the Council is not able to lease available FAHP units to Minneapolis families within 30 days, the Council may lease FAHP units to eligible families living in Brooklyn Center. What are the Council's resident selection criteria? It is the Council's goal to provide quality, stable, secure homes for families in the region. To that end, it is imperative that resident selection criteria be applied that provides residents with ample opportunities to succeed and be stable, positive members of residential communities. A draft summary of the Council's Selection Criteria is attached (Attachment B). Will support services be provided to residents? The Council currently operates a Family Self- Sufficiency Program that will be made available to FAHP residents as well. We are currently enhancing our program further by implementing welfare -to -work initiatives, and building collaborative partnerships with TANF and job placement providers. We will meet with Brooklyn Center staff to obtain information on local employers in need of employees, and will work to build connections between the two. 2 All housing will be operated and maintained according to the Council's Low Rent Public Housing Policies & Procedures. Family Affordable Housing Program Fact Sheet 9 February 2001 Page 2 of 3 Will property taxes be paid on Council -owned property? State law exempts public housing units from all real and personal property taxes of cities, counties and the state. Rather, the Council is required to pay PILOT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Under State law, PILOT payments generally equal five percent of gross rents charged to a family. However, as provided for under federal law, Council PILOT payments for FAHP units will be 10% of gross rents charged to each family. Payments are made annually to the county in which the property is located. The county is then responsible for distributing that payment to the various taxing authorities. Why should cities participate in the FAHP? There are many reasons why cities will choose to participate in the Council's Family Affordable Housing Program: ➢ Quality improvements will be made to all properties purchased by the Council, thus improving the quality of the overall housing stock. ➢ Thirty percent of all Brooklyn Center FAHP units will be leased to Brooklyn Center residents. ➢ Participation in FAHP will potentially gain additional points on upcoming transportation funding applications Brooklyn Center submits to the Metropolitan Council for consideration. ➢ Upon request, Brooklyn Center will be provided with technical services to help address planning for senior housing needs. ➢ Upon request, the Council will give priority to requests for project -based Section 8 rental assistance for senior housing development(s) in Brooklyn Center as follows: For every one FAHP unit secured in Brooklyn Center, the Council will prioritize project -based rental assistance for one senior unit. Thus, if 10 FAHP units are approved in Brooklyn Center, priority will be given for project- basing 10 senior units. Prioritization is contingent upon the following: • All proposals must be project- specific and submitted within 24 months of the Council's final acquisition in Brooklyn Center. (If Developer XYZ has a senior housing development in Brooklyn Center in need of Section 8 project -based rental assistance, the City of Brooklyn Center may forward a request to the Metropolitan Council for priority consideration (due to FAHP participation). • Requests for project basing must be made at application times as advertised by the Metropolitan Council. • The Metropolitan Council must have vouchers available to project -base and remain within the statutory project- basing limitations and established criteria. ➢ Residents of Brooklyn Center will be provided with long -term, quality, work -force housing for families ➢ Brooklyn Center residents will not be displaced as the Council will only purchase vacant units or units for sale by their owner occupant. ➢ FAHP units will be rental housing that is professionally managed, with resident screening that will help ensure residents have a successful rental experience. ➢ Appropriate services will be provided to residents, particularly in the area of job attainment and job enhancement. ➢ The Metropolitan Council will work with Brooklyn Center staff to ensure acquisition efforts do not interfere with redevelopment plans or opportunities. i Family Affordable Housing Program Fact Sheet 9 February 2001 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A S Metropolitan Council Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy Family Affordable Housing Program (FAHP) Unit Location Criteria Units being acquired by the Metropolitan Council for the FAHP will adhere to the following location criteria as a general guide for development. These criteria are established to focus efforts of the Metropolitan Council staff and its agents in placing the FAHP units in participating communities within Anoka, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties. 1) All units created under the FAHP will be located outside of Minority and Poverty Concentrated Areas as prescribed in the Hollman Consent Decree, unless specifically agreed upon by all parties to the Consent Decree. 2) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within %a mile of public transportation opportunities and/or in communities with local public transportation services. These opportunities may consist of bus stops or routes, local dial -a -ride programs, transit hubs, LRT stations, or other public transportation programs as may be provided by the local or regional jurisdiction. 3) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located near educational opportunities for children. These opportunities may include public or private elementary, middle or senior high schools, preschools, or other specialized learning centers that may benefit residents of the units. When possible, units should be located within walking distance of educational facilities. 4) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within walking distance of daycare facilities, including commercial or licensed home daycare providers. 5) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located in communities experiencing entry - level job growth and to the extent possible near employment opportunities for residents. 6) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within Y2 mile of neighborhood services such as grocery or convenience stores. 7) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within two miles of regional shopping and services, including grocery, banking, medical, dental, clothing and other services. 8) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located near social service centers and job training centers. e 9) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located near recreational facilities such as parks, trail ways, bike paths, ball fields, tennis courts, community centers, playgrounds, ice rinks, etc. Attachment B let Metropolitan Council Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM General Summary of Resident Selection Criteria (The contents of this document are subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council and the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development.) Goals The goals of the resident selection criteria detailed below are as follows: ➢ provide quality, stable, secure homes for families in the region ➢ provide an opportunity for families with low- incomes to enhance their positive rental history ➢ ensure residents of Council -owned housing are stable, positive members of residential communities ➢ ensure Council -owned property is an asset to all communities by operating such housing in a responsible and responsive manner. Criteria Generally, the history of an applicant's conduct must demonstrate capability of compliance with the terms of the Council's lease. A. Rental History Applicants must have the following to be considered for admission: ➢ positive rental history of at least 12 consecutive months within the previous two years ➢ history of timely, full payment of rents ➢ history of cooperation with management and other residents history of abiding by all other lease terms ➢ history of no property damage B. Criminal History Applicants must have no history of the following, subject to the Council's Basis for Admission Denial: ➢ criminal record of drug - related activity ➢ criminal record related to physical violence to persons or destruction of property ➢ criminal record that would adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of other residents and/or neighbors C. Income ➢ At least 40% of families admitted during the Council's fiscal year must have incomes that do not exceed 30% of area median income. ➢ The balance of residents admitted during the Council's fiscal year must have incomes that do not exceed 80% of median income. If the Council receives unfavorable information about an applicant, the Council will consider the time, nature, and extent of the applicant's conduct and factors that might indicate a reasonable probability of favorable future conduct or financial prospects. Background Checks In order to achieve the goals set out above, the Council will: 40 > Confirm sources of income Confirm rental history by contacting previous landlords and obtaining unlawful detainer reports Order credit reports to identify other previous addresses and subsequently contacting other identified landlords, if any ➢ Order criminal background checks to review criminal history of applicants and/or household members Mratt)1 November 2000 Attachment B Metropolitan Council Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM Summary of Basis for Admission Denial (The contents of this document are subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council and U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development.) A record of any of the following may be sufficient cause for the Council to deny admission: 1. Failure to pay rightful financial obligations, including rent and utilities. 2. Unpaid rent or other amounts owed to the Council or to another PHA in connection with Public Housing or Section 8 Programs. 3. Inability to comply with the Council's lease without supportive services from Council staff that would require an alteration in the fundamental nature of the Family Affordable Housing Program; 4. Disturbance of other residents, neighbors, or property management company staff; 5. History, or current violation, of the terms and conditions of any lease or occupancy agreement. 6. Destruction of property, or living or housekeeping habits at prior residences that may adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of other residents or neighbors; 7. A history of, or current record of, criminal or other activity involving physical violence to persons or property by the applicant or any member of the applicant's household, or a history of other criminal acts, conduct or behavior by the applicant or any member of the applicant's household which would adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of other residents, neighbors, Council employees, or property management agent employees; 8. A history of, or current record of, drug- related criminal activity by the applicant, any member of the applicant's household, or a guest or other person under the applicant's control. 9. Illegal use or pattern of use of a drug or controlled substance, or abuse or pattern of abuse of alcohol which the Council determines may interfere with the health, safety or the right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises or adjacent premises by neighbors, Council or property management agent staff; 10. Any conviction for manufacturing or producing methamphetamine (speed) shall be cause for lifetime denial; . ® 11. Lifetime registration under a state sex offender registration program shall be cause for a lifetime denial; FAMMY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM Page 1 of 2 Draft Summary of Basis for Admission Denial I November 2000 Draft 12. Fraud in connection with any Federal housing assistance program; 13. Eviction from housing or termination from residential programs (taking into account the date and circumstances); 14. Eviction from assisted housing within three years of the time the application is being processed for any drug related criminal activity involving personal use or possession; 15. Eviction from assisted housing within five years of the time the application is being processed for any drug related criminal activity involving the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution or possession with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute a controlled substance as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802; 16. Any misrepresentation relevant to the application process discovered at any time prior to after signing the lease; 17. Failure to cooperate with the Council or its management agent in completing the application process; 18. Failure to provide written accurate, current, objective and verifiable information regarding rental history, income, assets, family composition, childcare, drug or alcohol abuse, illegal drug use, or criminal activity; 19. Failure to supply requested documents as required to complete the application process; 20. Threatening, abusive or violent conduct towards a Council employee, management agent employee, other applicant, resident or neighbor. Except for items 10 and 11 above, an arrest or conviction is not required to deny admission. FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM Page 2 of 2 Draft Summary of Basis for Admission Denial 1 November 2000 Draft COOPERATION AGREEMENT Metropolitan Council Family Affordable Housing Program THIS COOPERATION AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into by and between the Metropolitan Council (the "Metropolitan Council ") and the City of Brooklyn Center, State of Minnesota (the "Municipality "). WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota and is authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 473.195 to exercise the functions, rights, duties, privileges, immunities and limitations as are provided for housing and redevelopment authorities created for municipalities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.195 the provisions of Minnesota Statutes sections 469.001 to 469.047 and of all other laws relating to housing and redevelopment authorities apply to the Metropolitan Council when the Metropolitan Council is functioning as an authority; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the implementation of its Family Affordable Housing Program ( "FAHP "), the Metropolitan Council proposes to acquire within the corporate limits of the Municipality on a scattered -site basis a limited number of residential properties ( "FAHP Units ") and will focus its acquisition efforts on housing structures containing four units or less; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the Municipality has given its prior approval regarding the Metropolitan Council's proposed housing initiative pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section • 473.195, subdivision 1. WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual covenants in this Agreement, the Municipality and the Metropolitan Council agree as follows: 1. Whenever used in this Agreement: (a) The term "FAHP Units" shall mean up to ten (10) residential housing units, as defined in Title 42 United States Code section 1437a(b)(1), developed or acquired by the Metropolitan Council in connection with its Family Affordable Housing Program with financial assistance of the United States of America acting through the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (the "Government ") and located on a scattered -site basis within the corporate limits of the Municipality. (b) The term "Taxing Body" or "Taxing Bodies" shall mean -the State of Minnesota and any and all political subdivisions or taxing units thereof in which FAHP Units are situated and which would have authority to assess or levy real or personal property taxes or to certify such taxes to a taxing body or public officer to be levied for its use and benefit with respect to the FAHP Units if the units were not exempt from taxation. (c) The term "Shelter Rent" shall mean the total rentals of a FAHP Unit charged to tenants during the preceding calendar year, excluding any charges for utilities and special Page I of 4 Pages services such as heat, water, electricity, gas, sewage disposal or garbage removal, and excluding all other income of the FAHP Unit. 2. The Metropolitan Council shall endeavor to: (a) Secure a contract or contracts with the Government for capital grants and annual contributions for the FAHP Units; and (b) Acquire or develop and administer the FAHP Units. 3. The Metropolitan Council and the Municipality agree: (a) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 469.040, and applicable federal laws and regulations, including Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations section 941.201(d), each FAHP Unit is exempt from all real and personal property taxes levied or imposed by any Taxing Body for so long as either: (i) the FAHP Unit is owned by a public body or governmental agency and is used for housing as defined in Title 42 United States Code section 1437a(b)(1); (ii) any contract between the Metropolitan Council and the Government in connection with the FAHP Unit remains in force and effect; or (iii) any bonds issued in connection with the FAHP Unit or any monies due to the Government in connection with the FAHP Unit remain unpaid, whichever period is the longest (the "Exemption Period "). (b) During the Exemption Period, the Municipality, on behalf of all Taxing Bodies, agrees that it will not levy or impose any real or personal property taxes upon a FAHP Unit or upon the Metropolitan Council with respect to the FAHP Unit. (c) During the Exemption Period, the Metropolitan Council shall make, or cause to be made, payments in lieu of taxes ( "Payments in Lieu of Taxes ") in payment for the public services and facilities furnished from time to time without other cost or charge for or with respect to each FAHP Unit. Each Payment in Lieu of Taxes shall be made at the time when real property taxes on a FAHP Unit would be paid if the FAHP Unit were subject to taxation, and shall be in an amount equal to ten percent (10 %) of the Shelter Rent charged with respect to the FAHP Unit during the preceding calendar year. A Payment in Lieu of Taxes for a FAHP Unit may not exceed the amount which would be payable in taxes if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from real or personal property taxes. (d) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 469.040, subdivision 3, the County within which a FAHP Unit is located shall distribute the Payments in Lieu of Taxes among the Taxing Bodies in the proportion which the real property taxes which would have been paid to each Taxing Body for such year if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from taxation bears to the total real property taxes which would have been paid to all of the Taxing Bodies for such year if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from taxation; provided, however, that no payment for any year shall be made to any Taxing Body in excess of the amount of the real property taxes which would have been paid to such Taxing Body for such year if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from taxation. Page 2 of 4 Pages 4. During the Exemption Period, the Municipality, or other appropriate Taxing Body, without cost or charge to the Metropolitan Council or the tenants of a FAHP Unit (other than the Payments in Lieu of Taxes) shall: (a) Furnish or cause to be furnished to the Metropolitan Council and the tenants of the FAHP Unit public services and facilities of the same character and to the same extent as are furnished from time to time without cost or charge to other dwellings and inhabitants in the Municipality; (b) Accept grants of easements necessary for the development of FAHP Units; and (c) Cooperate with the Metropolitan Council by such other lawful action or ways as the Municipality or other Taxing Body and the Metropolitan Council may find necessary in connection with the development and administration of the FAHP Units. 5. In respect to the initial development of FAHP Units, the Municipality further agrees, on behalf of all Taxing Bodies, that within a reasonable time after receipt of a written request from the Metropolitan Council: (a) It will accept the dedication of all interior streets, roads, alleys and adjacent sidewalks within the area of FAHP Units, together with all storm and sanitary sewer mains in such dedicated areas, after the Metropolitan Council, at its own expense, has completed the grading, improvement, paving and installation thereof in accordance with specifications acceptable to the Municipality or other Taxing Body; (b) When required by city ordinance, it will accept necessary dedications of land for, and will grade, improve, pave and provide sidewalks for, all streets bounding FAHP Units or necessary to provide adequate access to the FAHP Units (in consideration for which the Metropolitan Council shall pay to the Municipality or other Taxing Body such amount as are or could be assessed against the FAHP Unit sites for such work if such sites were privately owned); and (c) It will provide, or cause to be provided, water mains, and storm and sanitary sewer mains, leading to FAHP Units and serving the streets bounding the FAHP Units (in consideration for which the Metropolitan Council shall pay to the Municipality or other Taxing Body such amount as would be assessed against the FAHP Unit sites for such work if such sites were privately owned). 6. If by reason of the Municipality's or other Taxing Body's failure or refusal to furnish or cause to be furnished any public services or facilities which it has agreed to furnish or cause to be furnished to the Metropolitan Council or to the tenants of any FAHP Unit, the Metropolitan Council incurs any expense to obtain such services or facilities, then the Metropolitan Council may deduct the amount of such expense from any Payments in Lieu of Taxes due or to become due to the Municipality or other Taxing Body in respect to any FAHP Unit or any other housing units owned or operated by the Metropolitan Council. • 7. No Cooperation Agreement previously entered into between the Municipality and the Metropolitan Council, if any, shall be construed to apply to any FAHP Units covered by this Agreement. Page 3 of 4 Pages 8. No member of the governing body or any other public official of the Municipality or other Taxing Body who exercises any responsibilities or functions with respect to the any FAHP Unit during her or his tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any FAHP Unit or any contracts in connection with any FAHP Unit. If any such governing body member or such other public official of a Taxing Body involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of her or his tenure any such interest, she or he shall immediately disclose such interest to the Metropolitan Council. 9. During the Exemption Period, this Agreement shall not be abrogated, changed or modified without the consent of the Government. The privileges and obligations of the Municipality and other Taxing Bodies shall remain in full force and effect with respect to the FAHP Units so long as the beneficial title to the FAHP Units is held by the Metropolitan Council or by any other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, authorized by law to engage in the development or administration of housing as defined in Title 42 United States Code section 1437a(b)(1). If at any time the beneficial title to, or possession of, a FAHP Unit is held by such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, the provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by, such other pubic body or governmental agency, including the Government. 10. The obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall apply to each FAHP Unit. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the authorized representatives of the Municipality and the Metropolitan Council have respectively signed this Agreement. This Agreement is effective on the date when both parties' authorized representatives have signed this Agreement. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By By Jay R. Lindgren Its Regional Administrator Date Date and By Its Date This document drafted by: Office of the General Counsel Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 (651) 602 -1706 FAHPCOOPBLN 01123/01 Page 4 of 4 Pages SAMPLE CITY RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE ACQUISITION AND OPERATION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 473.195 to exercise the functions, rights, duties, privileges, immunities and limitations as are provided for housing and redevelopment authorities created for municipalities; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the implementation of its Family Affordable Housing Program ( "FAHP "), the Metropolitan Council proposes to acquire and administer residential properties ( "FAHP Units ") within the boundaries of the City, up to thirty percent of which units will be made available to eligible residents of the City; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.195, subdivision 1 requires the Metropolitan Council to obtain the approval of the governing body of the City before the Metropolitan Council may implement its proposed housing initiative within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, federal law requires the Metropolitan Council to enter into a Cooperation Agreement with the City in connection with the proposed acquisition and operation of the FAHP Units. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.195 the City Council gives its prior approval to the Metropolitan Council's proposal to acquire and administer up to ten (10) FAHP Units within the boundaries of the City; and BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council that the Mayor and the City Administrator are authorized to execute the Cooperation Agreement on behalf of the City. Adopted this _ day of , 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator (SEAL) FAHPCITYRES 10/27/00 City Council Agenda Item No. 9f • February 22, 2001 MEMO TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FRO A. Chambers, Assistant City Manager SUBJE T: Heritage Festival, March 18, 2001, request for Contribution For the second year, the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council has organized the Heritage Festival with sponsorship through the Northwest Human Rights Coalition. The event is scheduled for March 18, 2001 at Park Center Senior High School. The purpose of the event is to: • Encourage a climate within our communities that is sensitive and welcoming to a changing and diversified population. • Offer an opportunity for all residents to experience a sense of belonging and ownership within their communities. • Celebrate the cooperation between cultures through activities that are already • happening. The City of Brooklyn Center participated in sponsoring this event for several years as part of its Social Services budget. When the planning for the event switched to Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council staff in cooperation with the Northwest Human Rights Coalition, the timing of planning and seeking of funding changed, and was no longer a part of the annual consideration for funding conducted by the City Council through the budget process. However, since this event is part of the activities undertaken through the City's participation in the regional human rights coalition effort, it would be reasonable for the City to continue a contribution to the program. The current sponsor, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council has requested contributions for the event throughout the region from a variety of public and private sources. A contribution of $500 would be in keeping with the City's past level of contribution for the event, and can be made through the 2001 City Council budget for the Northwest Hennepin Human Rights and Resources Coalition ($300) and Conferences and Schools, ($200). For the 2002 budget, should the event be continued, this contribution will be budgeted for $500 under the Human Rights and Resources Coalition. i