HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 01-13 CCP Regular Session Public Copy
• CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
January 13, 1997
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Moment of Silence
4. Council Report
5. 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. December 4, 1996 - Truth In Taxation
2. December 9, 1996 - Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
3. December 16, 1996 - Regular Session
4. December 20, 1996 - Special Session
b. Resolution Designating Official Newspaper
C. Resolution Designating Depositories of City Funds
d. Resolution Establishing 1997 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates
e. Resolution Accepting Quotations and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No.
1996 -18, Contract 1997 -B, Well No. 10 Routine Maintenance
£ Resolution Amending Professional Services Contract for Design and Construction
Engineering Services, Improvement Project No. 1995 -04, Contract 1996 -I,
Replacement of Lift Station No. 1
g. Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing Rebuilding/Retrofitting of 35 Scott Air
Pacs
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- 1/13/97
•
h. Resolution Authorizing the Purchase ofk4weT5TSquad Cars
i. Licenses
6. Open Forum
7. Public Hearing
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances Regarding Refunds of
Permit Fees
-This item was first read on December 16, 1996, published in the official newspaper
on December 23, 1996, and is offered this evening for a second reading and public
hearing.
- Requested Council Action:
-Open the public hearing.
-Take public input.
-Close the public hearing.
- Motion to adopt ordinance.
b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Minnesota
State Building Code
• -This item was first read on December 16, 1996, published in the official newspaper
on December 23, 1996, and is offered this evening for a second reading and public
hearing.
- Requested Council Action:
-Open the public hearing.
-Take public input.
-Close the public hearing.
- Motion to adopt ordinance.
8. Planning Commission Item
a. Planning Commission Application No. 96017 Submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi.
Request for Planned Unit Development approval to construct an approximately 18,000
sq. ft. automobile dealership at 7223, 7231, 7235, and 7239 Brooklyn Boulevard. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its December 12,
1996, meeting.
1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No.
96017 Submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi
- Requested Council Action:
-Take public input.
- Motion to adopt resolution.
•
• CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- 1/13/97
9. Council Consideration Items
a. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Kristen Mann for Her
Dedicated Public Service as Council Member
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
b. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Charles F. Nichols, Sr., for
His Dedicated Public Service as Council Member
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
C. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Arnold Mavis for His
Dedicated Public Service
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
d. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Members Who Have Served
on City Advisory Commissions
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
e. Select Presiding fficers - Mayor Pro Tern and Actin Mayor Pro Tem
g Y g Y
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
f. Resolution Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter, Pledging Fair
Treatment of Employees, Declaring Against Conflicts of Interest and Misuse of
Positions
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
g. Set City Council Meeting Schedule for 1997
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt City Council meeting schedule for 1997.
h. Appointment of Council Member to Serve as City Representative
1. League of Minnesota Cities
2. North Metro Mayors Association
3. Northwest Suburban Cable Communications Commission
4. Tri-City Airport Commission/Crystal Airport Safety Committee
- Requested Council Action:
• -Mayor appoint Council Member to serve on each committee.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- 1/13/97
• i. Authorize Issuance ssuance of On -Site Fuel Station for North Medical Transportation Services
at 4501 - 68th Avenue North
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to authorize issuance of on -site fuel station.
j. Councilmember Peppe: Resolution Amending City Council Handbook Regarding
Order of Business
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
k. Report on Rotation of Audit Personnel
- Requested Council Action:
- Follow up from Council Member question at December 16, 1996, Council
meeting.
1. Report on Sign Ordinance Regulations
- Requested Council Action:
- Follow up from resident question at December 16, 1996, Council meeting.
m. Report on Police Department Response to Crack Houses
• - Requested Council Action:
-City Manager to give verbal report.
n. Mayoral Appointment: Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to confirm appointment of members to serve on task force.
10. Adjournment
•
s
Secretary
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
January 13, 1997
'y
1. Call to Order
7 Pm
2. Roll Call
3. Moment of Silence
4. Council Report
5. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
!n -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted
/Mow& 5,d, by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
44," cniSe4 4 so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
fw o( is - considered at the end of Council Consideration Items.
QePd O , a. Approval of Minutes (�� l 'I
0 .
a�iscu.� . � - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recor dlas abstaining from de vote
on the minutes.
" t y 1. December 4, 1996 - Truth In Taxation
ry� 2. December 9, 1996 -Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
Oct b, C 3. December 16, 1996 - Regular Session
4. December 20, 1996 - Special Session
t o -
9.7 01 b. ✓ Resolution Designating Official Newspaper
q-1 D 5- c. ✓ Resolution Designating Depositories of City Funds
E , lg) v Resolution Establishing 1997 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates
�(e) ' Resolution Accepting Quotations and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No.
1996 -18, Contract 1997 -B, Well No. 10 Routine Maintenance
f. J Resolution Amending Professional Services Contract for Design and Construction
Engineering Services, Improvement Project No. 1995 -04, Contract 19964,
Replacement of Lift Station No. 1
. Cr7 g. v Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing Rebuilding/Retrofitting,of 35 Scott Air
/ Pacs
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- 1/13/97
] (3 h. Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of JSquad Cars
i. Licenses
7' 16 m CaA-� G
1
6. jen Forum 7 S
7. Public Hearing
p a. v-{ An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances Regarding Refunds of
Permit Fees
-This item was first read on December 16, 1996, published in the official newspaper
on December 23, 1996, and is offered this evening for a second reading and public
hearing.
- Requested Council Action:
-Open the public hearing.
C
-Take public input.}
-Close the public hearing.
- Motion to adopt ordinance. ,
-- f? b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Minnesota
State Building Code
-This item was first read on December 16, 1996, published in the official newspaper
on December 23, 1996, and is offered this evening for a second reading and public
hearing.
- Requested Council Action:
-Open the public hearing. i
-Take public input.
-Close the public hearing.
- Motion to adopt ordinance.
8. Planning Commission Item
a. Planning Commission Application No. 96017 Submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi.
Request for Planned Unit Development approval to construct an approximately 18,000
sq. ft. automobile dealership at 7223, 7231, 7235, and 7239 Brooklyn Boulevard. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its December 12,
1996, meeting.
1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No.
96017 Submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi
- Requested Council Action:
-Take public input.
- Motion to adopt resolution.'/
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- 1/13/97
9. Council Consideration Items
Gj - 7- f ✓ a� Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Kristen Mann for Her
Dedicated Public Service as Council Member
- Requested Council Action: P
- Motion to adopt resolution.
Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Charles F. Nichols, Sr., for
9 His Dedicated Public Service as Council Member
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
9.7 Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Arnold Mavis for His
Dedicated Public Service
- Requested Council Action: C�2
- Motion to adopt resolution. /
7-- 10 d. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Members Who Have Served
on City Advisory Commissions
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
( � r
e. Select Presiding Officers - Mayor Pro 11 and Acting Mayor Pro Tem
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.'.:?''' °
f. Resolution Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter, Pledging Fair
Treatment of Employees, Declaring Against Conflicts of Interest and Misuse of
Positions
- Requested Council Action: /� j}
- Motion to adopt resolution. ` � l l�C A M
g. Set City Council Meeting Schedule for 1997
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt City Council meeting schedule for 1997. ?�
h. Appointment of Council Member to Serve as City Representative
I . League of Minnesota Cities t"m a .
2. North Metro Mayors Association
3. Northwest Suburban Cable Communication Commission
4. Tri-City Airport Commission/Crystal Airport Safety Committee i -
- Requested Council Action:
-Mayor appoint Council Member to serve on each committee.
C t3' dr y ` d : r
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- 1/13/97
L Authorize Issuance of On -Site Fuel Station for North Medical Transportation Services
at 4501 - 68th Avenue North
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to authorize issuance of on -site fuel station. i$. I 0,VW1 666
r -
'1 d
!� j. Councilmember Peppe: Resolution Amending City Council Handbook Regarding
/ Order of Business
?
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution. Lka
W i Osfr04 -1
k. Report on Rotation of Audit Personnel d` y ffzo
-Requested Council Action:
- Follow up from Council Member question at December 16, 1996, Council
meeting.
1. Report on Sign Ordinance Regulations
-Requested Council Action:
- Follow up from resident question at December 16, 1996, Council meeting.
m. Report on Police Department Response to Crack Houses
-Requested Council Action:
-City Manager to give verbal report.
n. Mayoral Appointment: Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force
-Requested Council Action: ��Qi(,IYta
- Motion to confirm appointment of members to serve on task force .
-fie -- Adjam n me t j •j
Jel
- 7 /5 /5
� ��
L4 Fe
Y
No% nook
k
UNAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
• OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
TRUTH IN TAXATION BUDGET HEARING
DECEMBER 4, 1996
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met for the Truth in Taxation Budget Hearing and was called to
order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m.
RO CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Kristen Mann.
Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, City Assessor
Stephen Baker, and Council Secretary LeAnn Larson.
Councilmember Charles F. Nichols, Sr., was absent.
• PRESENTATION
City Manager McCauley explained the purpose of this meeting, that being to give the public
opportunity to give input to the Council on the budget. By state law, the Council may not take action
to adopt the budget at this meeting.
The City Manager announced that the final budget would be adopted at the December 16 ' 1996,
Council meeting at City Hall at 7 p.m. A hearing on the budget will be held at that time.
City Manager McCauley gave Y g overview
of the 1997 proposed budget and preliminary levy. The
proposed preliminary levy would increase the total real estate taxes levied by the City, EDA, and
HRA by slightly less than four ercent
p above the gross Levy for 1996.
The City Manager outlined the General Fund levy increase of four percent that would generate an
additional $247,786 in revenue for the General Fund. This increased levy would be used to fund
street projects in 1997 with cash rather than issuing debt. In comparing the 1996 budget to the 1997
budget in the same terms, the proposed 1997 budget represented a decrease in the operating budget.
While the proposed 1997 budget is higher than the 1996 budget, the 1997 budget contains $394,197
for construction transfer for street projects and debt service of $251,315. When adjusted for the
• 12/4/96
-1-
DRAFT
construction transfer and the debt service, the 1997 budget is $152,419 lower than the 1996 budget •
that did not contain those two items.
The increase in the levy of four percent was the first increase since the 1995 levy. The final 1996
levy was actually lower than the 1995 levy. The average over the two years 1996 and 1997 was two
percent per year for the growth in the levy. While an individual property might have an increase or
decrease in their City taxes that was at a higher or lower percentage than four percent due to the state
formula applied to determining taxes and tax capacity, the City's income from taxes would only
increase by four percent.
Debt service requirements will increase in 1997 due to the issuance of special assessment bonds
including the City's share for 1996 street projects.
City Manager McCauley noted the General Fund Budget for 1997 involves converting to a new
system from the multiple departments containing fractional employees to a more unified division
format.
The City Manager highlighted some specific changes and issues in the draft budget before presenting
1997 proposed taxes as compared to 1996 actual taxes for a given parcel. He discussed the impact
of increase valuation on proposed taxes, tax rate calculations, and the shift in percentage of the tax
base comprised by commercial properties which decreased from 1996 to 1997 and residential
properties which increased from 1996 to 1997.
•
PUBLIC INPUT
Mayor Kragness encouraged residents at the meeting to offer input on any issues pertaining to the
1997 City budget.
David Mulla, 6732 Willow Lane North, inquired why the proposed tax increase (as reported on his
Proposed Property Tax Statement for 1997) for the City portion of his taxes increased more than the
increase in value of his home. The City Manager discussed that a one percent increase in value of
a home over $72,000 increases tax capacity on that home by two percent. Thus, a 7.9 percent
increase in value results in a 15.8 percent increase in tax capacity.
Joyce Samuelson, 4207 Lakeside Avenue #229, asked why there was so little difference in the value
between her one bedroom townhome versus a neighbor's two bedroom unit. City Assessor Baker
will look into this situation.
Dan Remiarz, 6201 June Avenue North, inquired about the differences in increases between the other
taxing districts (i.e., Hennepin County, the various school districts, etc.) and the increase in the City
portion of his tax. Mr. Remiarz also asked about the use of watershed funds. Councilmember Mann
responded to these issues.
•
12/4/96 -2-
DRAFT
Bruce Morrow, 7212 Willow Lane North, disagreed with the state's method of valuation (i.e., market
• value) for his property. City Assessor Baker explained the valuation method presently used by the
state.
Susan Niemi, 3824 France Place, asked what the Council was doing to attract growth in the
commercial sector in order to offset the increase in taxes to residential properties. She especially
was concerned about the affect these increases will have on elderly /limited income people and the
decreasing value of Brookdale. Mayor Kragness noted that the Council is also concerned about
Brookdale and cited the growth of commercial businesses in other areas of Brooklyn Center.
Bob Paulson, 7012 France Avenue North, questioned improvements to his property and its
relationship to value increases and This Old House exclusions. City Assessor Baker will look into
Mr. Paulson's issue.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to close the hearing
passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to adjourn the
meeting at 8:07 p.m. passed unanimously.
•
City Clerk Mayor
Recorded and transcribed by:
LeAnn Larson
• 12/4/96 -3-
D RAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
JOINT SESSION
DECEMBER 9, 1996
CITY HALL
CALL TOO ER
The City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint meeting called to order by Mayor pro tem
Debra Hilstrom at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Charles F. Nichols, Sr., Planning
Commission Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Donald Booth, Rex Newman, Dianne Reem, and
Brian Walker. Mayor Myrna Kragness entered the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Also present were City
Manager Michael J. McCauley, Director of Community Development Brad Hof&nan, Secretary to
the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, Planning Commission
• Recording Secretary Arlene Bergfalk, and Mr. Jim Thomson, attorney, Kennedy & Graven law firm.
Councilmember Kristen Mann and Planning Commissioners Graydon Boeck and Mark Holmes did
not attend.
OORDIN N .F TO U LT USE BUS (MORAT[� TT T%
96 -M
City Manager McCauley reviewed the issues related to siting of adult establishments within the City
of Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Thomson presented a legal overview of local regulation of adult uses. He distributed and
reviewed a document entitled. REGULATION OF ADULT USES." Written and presented in a
question and answer format, the material described adult use, explained the existing legal protection
of adult businesses, and outlined the types of acceptable zoning and licensing regulations under
current laws that have been upheld by various courts.
The Councilmembers and planning Commissioners took part in a discussion of the available options
to determine the appropriate method of regulation of adult use businesses for Brooklyn Center.
Regulation by licensing and two types of zoning regulations - dispersal regulation and concentration
regulation - were considered. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of regulation were
examined. Messrs. Thomson, McCauley, Warren, and Hoffman answered questions from the
participants.
12/9/96 -1-
DRAFT
Following the discussion, a consensus of the Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners
emerged that Brooklyn Center should regulate adult use businesses under a zoning regulation which
concentrates such businesses in a specific area of the City, and further that such businesses should
be concentrated in the Industrial (I -1) Zoning District. These decisions were based on the best
interests of the community and that such regulation would be defensible in a court of law.
PROCEDURE
Mr. McCauley explained that Mr. Thomson will prepare draft ordinances reflecting the direction
set at this meeting for consideration by the Planning Commission in January 1997. The current
moratorium on the siting of adult uses expires on March 30, 1997; therefore, it is anticipated that an
acceptable ordinance will be developed and agreed upon for implementation on that date.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor •
Recorded and transcribed by:
Arlene Bergfalk
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
12/9/96 -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
DECEMBER 16, 1996
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor
Myrna Kragness at 7:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Charles F.
Nichols, Sr. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, City Attorney Charlie
LeFevere, and Council Secretary LeAnn Larson.
Councilmember Kristen Mann was absent and excused.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
A moment of silence was observed.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Carmody noted the publicity for Brooklyn Center when a resident's Christmas
light display was featured recently in a metro newspaper.
Mayor Kragness shared a holiday reading.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve
the agenda and consent agenda as printed passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve
minutes of the November 18, 1996 -- Special Work Session; November 25, 1996 -- Regular
Session; and December 2, 1996--Special Work Session as printed . d assed unanimous)
P p P Y
12/16/96
-1-
DRAFT'-
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -236
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONGRATULATING DARRELL MEEHAN AS
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER, THIRD
QUARTER 1996, AND CONGRATULATING ALL THIRD QUARTER NOMINEES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO 96 -237
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL
PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -11, CONTRACT 1995 -E,
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SANITARY SEWER TRUNK RELINING
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO 96 -238 '
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1997 -07, CONTRACT
1997 -A, REPLACEMENT OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND FUEL SYSTEM,
CENTRAL GARAGE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-239
Member Carmody :introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR ORCHARD LANE EAST
STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 1996 -01, 02, AND 03, CONTRACT 1996 -B
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
12/16/96 -2-
DRAFT
APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FORA THORIZATION TO CONDUCT EXCLUDED
BINGO AND APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT AN EXCLUDED
RAFFLE FROM THE WILLOW LANE PTA
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve
the application for authorization to conduct excluded bingo and the application for authorization
to conduct an excluded raffle from the Willow Lane PTA P assed unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF 1997 LIQUOR LICENSES
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve
the liquor licenses as listed passed unanimously.
Class A On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License
Olive Garden Italian Restaurant, 1601 James Circle North
Class B On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, 1347 Brookdale Mall
Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante 2
101 Freeway Boulevard
Earle Brown Bowl, 6440 James Circle North
The Ground Round, 2545 County Road 10
Hilton Hotel, 2200 Freeway Boulevard
Lynbrook Bowl, 6357 Lilac Drive North
Pavilion Restaurant/Rookies Bar and Grill, 1501 Freeway Boulevard
Class F and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating_LLi uor License
D'Amico Catering at Earle Brown Heritage Center, 6155 Earle Brown Drive
On -Sale Club Intoxicating Liquor License
American Legion Post 630, 4307 70th Avenue North
On -Sale Wine Licenses
Dayton's Brookdale Inn, 1100 Brookdale Center
Denny's Restaurant, 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North
Fuddruckers, 5800 Shingle Creek Parkway
Denny's Restaurant, 6401 James Circle
12!16/96 _3_
I
DRAFT
On -Sale Non- Intoxicating Liquor License
Beacon Bowl, 6525 West River Road
Chuckwagon Grill, 1928 57th Avenue North
Centerbrook Golf Course and Central Park, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Daddy -O's Cafe, 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard
Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies, 5937 Summit Drive
Dayton's Brookdale Inn, 1100 Brookdale Center
Denny's Restaurant, 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North
Denny's Restaurant, 6401 James Circle
50's Grill, 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard
Fuddruckers, 5800 Shingle Creek Parkway
Scoreboard Pizza, 6816 Humboldt Avenue North
Off -Sale Non Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses
Jerry's New Market, 5801 Xerxes Avenue North
SuperAmerica, 6545 West River Road
SuperAmerica, 1901 57th Avenue North
LICENSES
Bowling Alley
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
ourtesv Bench
U. S. Bench Corporation 3300 Snelling Avenue, Minneapolis
Gasoline Service Stations
Brookdale Unocal 76 5710 Xerxes Avenue North
Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway
Humboldt Unocal 76 6840 Humboldt Avenue North
U. S. Post Office 6848 Lee Avenue North
Bill West's Service Center 2000 57th Avenue North
Mechanical Systems
General Sheet Metal Corporation 2330 Louisiana Avenue North, Minneapolis
Key -Tee Services PO Box 180, Rogers
Pool and Billiards Tables
Chi- Chi's, Inc. 2101 Freeway Boulevard
Public Dance
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
12/16/96 -4-
•
DRAFT
Rental Dwellings
Renewal:
Kenneth Solie/Village Properties Evergreen Park Manor
Gary Brummer River Glen Apartments
Earl J. Backer 7018 Brooklyn Boulevard
John and Diane Stephens 3824 Burquest Lane
Greg and Kathleen Voge 5018 Ewing Avenue North
Todd McDonald 7013 Girard Avenue North
Orval and Marya Hage 7215 Girard Avenue North
Roland Scherber 4714 Lakeview Avenue North
Jerry and Karen Fobbe 4811 Lakeview Avenue North
Raymond and Rosanne Marshall 5637 Northport Drive
Henry R. Johnson 6736 Scott Avenue North
Joseph Veidel 7104 Unity Avenue North
Edward Sass 5103 Xerxes Avenue North
Irma Vogel 2841 67th Lane North
Sing Hanizer
DeMars Signs 410 93rd Avenue NW, Coon Rapids
Tobacco Related Product
Brooklyn Center Municipal #1 1500 69th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center Municipal #2 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center Municipal #3 1966 57th Avenue North
Brookdale Unocal 76 5710 Xerxes Avenue North
Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 Lilac Drive North
Duos Bros. American Legion 4307 70th Avenue North
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
Jerry's New Market 5801 Xerxes Avenue North
OPEN FORUM
Ms. Kleven, 5835 Zenith Avenue North, suggested a sign ordinance change to allow signs to
be posted on commercial property with permission of the property owner. She also was
disappointed in the unequal enforcement of this particular provision of the sign ordinance,
citing an example where a sign is posted illegally but allowed to remain.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO OPERATE A PAWN SHOP AT 1950 57TH AVENUE
NORTH SUITE 17 SUBMITTED BY CA H `N PAWN
City Manager McCauley noted that this agenda item had been tabled from the November 25,
• 12/16/96 _5_
DRAFT''
1996, Council meeting in order to get a clarification from City Attorney LeFevere regarding
the issue of "delinquent" and "unpaid" taxes currently owed at Northbrook Plaza, and whether
th e li were eligible ible to be licensed.
P g
A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the
public hearing passed unanimously.
Jennfier Greene, Retail Leasing Representative with Welsh Companies, the court- ordered
Receiver of Northbrook Plaza, spoke on behalf of Welsh Companies. Since receving the
management and leasing assignment, the primary goals of Welsh for Northbrook have been to
stop the physical erosion of the property, to find stable tenants to create positive cash flow to
fund other ncessary improvements, and to rpoceed to make those physical changes that the
property can afford in order to clean up the property and make it a safer place to do business.
New standards for landscaping, snow plowing, lighting, and building maintenance at
Northbrook have been implemented to insure that the plaza is presented as cleanly as possible
while being a safe retail center for the merchants and their customers.
Ms. Greene further stated that Welsh Companies wants to manage this property through cash
flow. She was aware of the $28,000 approximate balance of unpaid taxes for 1996, and stated
that the revenue from this tenant, Cash `n Pawn, would enable cash flow sufficient to meet the
tax needs of the plaza for both 1996 and 1997.
Councilmember Carmody responded that this is a condensed neighborhood of the City and was
concerned about having this business here.
Ms. Greene said that further erosion of the property was inevitable without additional tenants.
Alan Cross, CEO of Cash n Pawn International, offered to answer additional questions. He
stated that Cash `n Pawn is a nice business and would be an asset to the comunity.
City Attorney LeFevere responded to questions on the unpaid tax status. Mr. LeFevere noted
that the Council could deny a business licnses based on unpaid taxes as long as the Council's
interpretation of the City's code of ordinances for the term "delinquent" simply means that an
obligation was due and unpaid.
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the
public hearing passed unanimously.
A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to deny the
application for license to operate a pawn shop at 1950 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, submitted
II I by Cash n Pawn, due to the unpaid taxes on the premises p p s making it ineligible to be licensed,
passed unanimously.
12/16/96
•
DRAFT
. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS NO 1 AND NO 2 TO THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO 3 AND
MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO
City Manager McCauley noted recent corespondence and a recommendation by Hennepin
County Acting County Administrator regarding the proposed TIF modifications. With the
County Board of Commissioners meeting soon, Mr. McCauley suggested the continuance of
this hearing until Friday, December 20, 1996, at 8:30 a.m., in order to learn of the Board of
Commissioners response to this recommendation by the Acting County Administrator, Jeff
Spartz.
A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Nichols to continue
this hearing to December 20, 1996, 8:30 a.m. at City Hall, passed unanimously.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING—CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING
TO THE REGULATION OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING: AMENDING SECTION 11 -717
PARAGRAPH 2
City Manager McCauley noted that this was a technical amendment to change the maximum
amount charged for pulltab leases to read the maximum amount authorized by law.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to open the
public hearing passed unanimously.
No public input was offered.
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the
public hearing passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-21
Member Carmody introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING
TO THE REGULATION OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING; AMENDING SECTION 11 -717,
PARAGRAPH 2
The motion for the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Hilstrom and passed
unanimously.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 12 AND 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AND HOUSING CODE
. VIOLATIONS: AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1201.12-1206, AND 19 -105
12/16/96 -7-
DRAF
City Manager McCauley explained that this ordiance change established a hearing process i n
g
gP
the execution of compliance orders for housing code violations and as appeal process in the
abatement of nuisances.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Nichols to open the
public hearing passed unanimously.
No public input was offered.
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to close the
public hearing passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-22
Member Hilstrom introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 12 AND 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AND HOUSING CODE
VIOLATIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1201,12-1206, AND 19 -105
The motion for the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Carmody and passed
unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF THE 1997 BUDGET
City Manager McCauley presented the proposed 1997 budget. The City's 1997 budget
continues City services and provides funding for street projects without the issuance of bonds.
The proposed levy increased revenues to the City eneral Fund b $247 786. This represents
tY Y � P
a four percent increase in the City levy over the 1996 levy of $6,194,650 to the proposed levy
of $6,442,436 for 1997. The 1996 levy was actually lower than the 1995 levy, resulting in the
first increase in the levy in two years.
Total City General Fund revenues are budgeted at a 3.01 percent increase. Real estate taxes
represent roughly half the City's revenue, with local government aids the next largest source
of revenue. City General Fund expenditures are projected to increase 3.01 percent over 1996.
However, the operations portion of the General Fund budget will actually decrease in 1997 as
compared to 1996.
The increase in General Fund revenues is being used to fund, with cash, the City's portion of
annual street improvement projects. While revenues in the General Fund are budgeted to
increase by approximately $355,000, the 1997 budget allocated $394,070 for street work and
includes the additional $112,000 needed to pay the interest and principal payments due on the
bonds issued in 1996 for 1996 street projects. The projected savings by using cash, rather than
•
12/16/96 -8-
m l)"RAFT
issuing bonds in 1997 and thereafter for street projects, should reduce the total cost for the
. City's share of future street improvements projects by eliminating the cost of issuing bonds and
paying interest on those bonds. By not issuing bonds for projects in 1997, the projected savings
would be approximately $198,000 in interest and costs of issuing bonds.
The 1997 budget does not include any increases in the number of full -time personnel and
provides modest reductions in part-time employees. The 1997 budget has also changed the
format of the budget to make it easier to understand by returning to the former line -item format
where there are fewer divisions and more detail is given as to the intended purpose of
allocations for each division.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to open the
public hearing passed unanimously.
No public input was offered.
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the
public hearing passed unanimously.
Councilmember Hilstrom complimented the City Manager and staff on their diligent efforts to
make the budget more understandable. She stated that the established City Council goals for
1997 were reflected in the 1997 Budget, and that the City is moving in a good direction. She
noted that the Earle Brown Heritage Center will finish 1996 in the black and not require tax
increment financing funds for operations.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -240
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE,
AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001
THROUGH 469.047 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1997
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-241
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
• 12/16/96 -9 -
DFIAFT
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A FINAL TAX LEVY FOR 1997 APPROPRIATIONS •
FOR THE GENERAL FUND, THE STREET IMPROVEMENT DEBT SERVICE FUNDS,
THE E.D.A. FUND, AND THE H.R.A. FUND BUDGETS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -242
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 FINAL BUDGET
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-243
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE SPECIAL
REVENUE FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was d
P g g s my seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -244
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE CAPITAL
PROJECTS FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-245
Member Carmody introduced the followin g P
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
12/16/96 -10-
I
DRAFT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
. Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -246
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE INTERNAL
SERVICE FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
REFUNDS OF PERMIT FEES
City Manager McCauley introduced this ordinance section setting policy on requests for permit
fee refunds.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve
the first reading of the ordinance and set January 13, 1997, for a public hearing and second
reading passed unanimously.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
THE MINNE
,SOTA-STATE BUILDING CODE
City Manager McCauley introduced a housekeeping ordinance to reflect the adoption of
modifications to the State Bulidng Code in 1995.
A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve
the first reading of the ordinance and set January 13, 1997, for a public hearing and second
reading passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES AND AUTHORIZING
PAYMENT THEREOF (MPRS SETTLEMENT
City Manager McCauley explained the City's allocation of costs and damages for the
Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS) lawsuit. The MPRS has administered pre -
employment screening tests for entry-level police officers for member cities since 1979. In
1993, two lawsuits were commenced in order to determine whether the MPRS testing process
was lawful and whether damages should be awarded to the plaintiffs. The court ruled that the
12/16/96
-11-
DRAFT''
MPRS testing process violated the state Human Rights Act and the plaintiffs were entitled to •
damages. Brooklyn Center's allocation of the costs and damages is $20,287.50. (There were
36 defendant cities involved in this suit.)
Councilmember Hilstrom inquired whether Brooklyn Cneter still used this MPRS method of
testing recruits. Mr. LeFevere responded that Brooklyn Center hasn't used the MPRS method
for several years.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -247
Member Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES AND AUTHORIZING
PAYMENT THEREOF (MPRS SETTLEMENT)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Nichols
and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SIX LANE OPTION AND THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY
100 BETWEEN HIGHWAY 55 AND 50TH AVENUE NORTH
City Manager McCauley explained the recommendation by the North Metro Highway 100
Council, Mn/DOT, and the Metropolitan Council for upgrading the Highway 100 corridor
between Highway 55 and 50th Avenue North. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) recommends that Highway 100 be upgraded to six lanes in order to meet future traffic
demands.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -248
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SIX -LANE OPTION AND THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY
100 BETWEEN HIGHWAY 55 AND 50TH AVENUE NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Nichols
and passed unanimously.
MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS OF COUNCIL LIAISONS TO CITY COMMISSIONS FOR
1997
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to ratify the
12/16/96 -12-
•
0 AFT
_-
mayoral appointments of Council liaisons to the commissions as listed passed unanimously.
Councilmember
Carmody Human Rights and Resources Commission
Councilmember Hilstrom Financial Commission and Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM)
Councilmember -elect Lasman Housing Commission and Crime Prevention
Councilmember -elect Peppe Park and Recreation Commission
MAYORAL RE PPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to ratify the
mayoral nominations for reappointments to City Advisory Commissions as listed passed
unanimously.
Financial Commission: Donn Escher, Ron Christensen
Housing Commission: Jonathan Carter, Michael desParois, Naomi Ische
Human Rights and Resources Commission: Sharon Achtelik, Nancy Doucette
Park and Recreation Commission: Bud Sorenson
Planning Commission: Tim Willson, Graydon Boeck, Dianne Reem, Brian Walker
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE C014-TRACT FOR LOCAL 49 (PUBLIC WORKS
MAINTENANCE) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR
ENDAR
i YEARS 1997 -1999
City Manager McCauley stated that the City has reached an agreement with local 49 (Public
Works) on a three -year contract, with a three percent increase on base wages effective January
1 of each year, 1997, 1998, and 1999, and a phase in of insurance coverage into a cafeteria
insurance plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-249
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR LOCAL 49 (PUBLIC WORKS
MAINTENANCE) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR
YEARS 1997 -1999
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Nichols
and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION SEMNG SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1997
City Manager McCauley proposed a three percent increase in wages effective January 1, 1997,
•
12/16/96 -13-
DRAFT"
for all non - represented full -time employees, plus a few insurance benefit changes with the shift
to a cafeteria insurance plan. .
RESOLUTION NO. 96-250
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION SETTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1997
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
SET DATE FOR FIRST CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN JANUARY 1997
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to set the date
for first City Council meeting in 1997 for January 13, 1997, at 7 p.m. passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING AUDITORS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1996
City Manager McCauley stated that the City began using the firm Deloitte and Touche for audit
services in 1987. In 1994, the City Council directed that a requests for proposals be solicited
from other auditing firms. At that time, an audit committee reviewed proposals from six firms
and recommended that the City continue to receive services from Deloitte and Touche.
In 1996, the Financial Commission recommended and the Council adopted a policy which
established a schedule for conducting requests for proposals (RFPs) for the six professional
services used by the Finance Department. The purpose was to ensure that some RAPS would
be done each year and that all services would be periodically rebid. This schedule established
the year 2000 as the next time that a RFP would be conducted for audit services.
Deloitte and Touche proposed a fee for this audit service of $27,100, which is an increase of
less than two percent over the fee for the same service last year. Deloitte and Touche was doing
an excellent job, according to staff.
Councilmember Carmody expressed concern with retaining the services of the same auditors
for more than a decade. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if Deloitte and Touche utilize different
employees annually when conducting their audits.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -251
Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPOINTING AUDITORS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1996
12/16/96 -14-
DRAFT
• The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Nichols
and passed unanimously.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER CHARLES ES F NICHOLS SR FOR HIS
SERVICE ON THE COUNCIL
Mayor Kragness expressed thanks on the behalf of the Council to Mr. Nichols for his dedication
and service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Nichols wished the City well in the future and
expressed his gratitude in being allowed to serve as a Council member.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn
the meeting at 8:30 p.m. passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
Recorded and transcribed
by:
LeAnn Larson
• 12/16/96 -15-
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
SPECIAL SESSION
DECEMBER 20, 1996
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 8:40 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Charles F.
Nichols, Sr. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Community Development Director
Brad Hoffman, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. Absent: Councilmember Kristen Mann.
• PUBLIC HEARING
MODIFICATIONS NO 1 AND NO 2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO 3
No action was taken by the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to adjourn the
meeting at 8:42 a.m. passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
•
12/20/96 _1 _
City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: January 8, 1997
SUBJECT: Resolution Designating Official Newspaper
Section 12.01 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter requires the City Council to annually designate
a legal newspaper of general circulation in the City as its official newspaper. Minnesota Sun
Publications has once again requested the Council to designate the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post to
be the official newspaper for 1997.
The attached resolution designates the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post as the official newspaper for the
City of Brooklyn Center for the year 1997.
• Attachments:
Resolution Designating Official Newspaper
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 331A
Minnesota Sun Publications Letter
s
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
WHEREAS, Section 12.01 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter and Minnesota
St tutes Section 412.831 requires the City Council to annually at its first meeting of the year
designate a legal newspaper of general circulation in the city as its official newspaper in which
shall be published such ordinances and other matters as are required by law to be so published and
such other matters as the council may deem it advisable and in the public interest to have
published in this manner; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post has previously been so designated; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post meets all necessary requirements for
designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post is hereby designated as the official newspaper
for the City of Brooklyn Center for the year 1997.
•
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.
•
JMIY YJ.� 70 e17. 1D F\LIYI `IL1JT Oe �MHV LI`I P el
(
I
309 NEWSPAPERS 331A.01
CHAPTER 331A
'�l 1
NEWSPAPERS !
I
i 331A.01 pefinitions. 331A.06 Feces for publication.
j 331A.02 Requirements for a qualified 331A.07 Affidavit of publication.
newsoapn• 331 A.0S Computation of tune.
331A.03 where notice published. 331A.09 Publication on Sunday.
331A.04 Desipation of a newspaper for 331A.10 Change of name or
official publications, diseontlnuanee of nawapaper-
331AAS Form of public notices. 331A.I I Applicuion. ; I
331A.01 DFFIMTIONS. I
Subdivision 1. As used in sections 331A.01 to 331A.1 1, the terms defined have the
meanings given them except as otherwise expressly provided or indicated by the con -
text.
Subd. 2. "Known office of issue" means the principal office maintained by the pub -
lisher or managing officer during a newspaper's regular business hours to gather news ,
and sell advertisements and subscriptions, whether or not printing or any other opera-
tions of the newspaper are conducted at or from the office, and devoted primarily to E
business related to the newspaper. A newspaper may have only one known office of
issue.
Subd. 3. - Loca) public corporation" means a county, municipality, school district, i
or any other local political subdivision or local or area district, commission, board, or
authority.
Subd. 4. "Municipality" means a home rule charter or statutory city or town.
• Subd. S. "Newspaper" means a publication issued regularly by the same person or
corporation, or a successor, whether the name of the publication is the same or differ- t
ent.
of all official actions taken b the gov-
Subd. 6. Proceedings means the substance Y
eming body of a local public corporation at any regular or special meeting, and at mini -
mum includes the subject matter of a motion, the persons making and seconding a
motion, the roil call vote on a motion, the character of resolutions or ordinances
offered, including a brief description of their subject matter, and whether defeated or '
adopted.
� �4
Subd. 7. "Public notice" means every notice required or authorized by law or by ' 3
order of a court to be published by a qualified newspaper, and includes:
(a) every publication of laws, ordinances, resolutions, financial information, and
proceedings intended to give notice in a particular area;
(b) every notice and certificate of election, facsimile ballot, notice of referendum,4{
notice of public hearing before a governmental body, and notice of meetings of private
{ and public bodies required by law; and 1 4 .
(c) every summons, order, citation, notice of sale or other notice which is intended
to inform a person that the person may or shall do an act or exercise a right within a
designated period or upon or by a designated date.
(d) this subdivision contains no independent requirement for the publication of
any public notice.
Subd. 8. "Qualified newspaper" means a newspaper which complies with all of the
provisions of section 331A.02. The following terms, when found in laws referring to
the publication of a public notice, shall be taken to mean a qualified newspaper. "gnali- (.
fled legal newspaper," "legal newspaper," "official newspaper," "newspaper," and ,1
"medium of official and legal publication."
Subd. 9. "Secondary office" means an office established by a newspaper in a com-
munity other than that in which its known office of issue is located, in the same or an
• adjoining county, to enhance its coverage of and service to that community, open on
•i
n,, �� �o u�• :, ncl 1 a Ur�nvc.i J
1
331A.01 NEWSPAPERS
310
a regular basis to gather news and sell advertisements and subscriptions, whether or no
printing or any other operations of the newspaper are conducted at or from the offs et
and devoted primarily to business related to the newspaper.
Subd. 10. "Summary" means an accurate and intelligible abstract or synopsis of
the essential elements of proceedings, ordinances, resolutions, and other official
actions. It shall be written in a clear and coherent manner, and shall, to the extent ssi.
le ble, avoid the use of technical or le po
It
terms of
e
n
a summary is published, the publication shall clearly indicate t at he publi h d mate-
rial is only a summary and that the full text is available for public inspection at a des-
ignated location. A summary published in conformity with this section shall be deemed
to fulfill all legal publication requirements as completely as if the entire matter which
.rr was summarized had been published. No liability shall be asserted against the local
public corporation in connection with the of a summa
a
hlistoly: 1984 c 543 s 20,- 1986 c 444 p ry or agenda,
331A.02 REQUIREMENTS FOR A QUALIFIED NEWSPAPER.
Subdivision 1. Qualification, No newspaper in this state shall be entitled to any
compensation or fee for publishing any public notice unless it is qualified as a medium
Of official and legal publication. A newspaper that is not qualified must inform a pub-
lic body that presents a public notice for publication that it is not Qualified. To be quali-
fied as a medium of official and legal publication, a newspaper shall:
(a) be printed in the English language in newspaper format and in column and
sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 1, 0
(b) if daily, be distributed at least five days each week, or if not dail
uted at least once each week, For 50 weeks each year. In any week in which a legal holi-
• day is included, not more than four issues of a daily e distrib-
y paper are necessa
(c) in at least half of its issues each year, have no more than 75 percent of its
printed space comprised of advertising material and paid public notices. In all of its
issues each year, have 25 percent, if published more often than weekly, or 50 percent,
if weekly, of its news columns devoted to news of local interest w hi ch
it purports to serve. Not more than 25 to the commu percent of its total nonadvertising column inches
in any issue may wholly duplicate any other publication unless the duplicated material
is from recognized general news services;
(d) be circulated in the local public corporation which it purports to serve, and
either have at Ieasi 500 copies regularly delivered to
500 copies regularly distributed without charge to local residents hers or have at least
(e) have its known office of issue established in either the county in which li
whole or in part, the local public corporation which the newspaper es, e
or in an adjoining county; purports to serve,
e,
(f) file a copy of each issue immediately with the state historical society;
(g) be made available at single or subscription prices to any person
partnership, or other unincorporated association requesting the newspaper and making
the applicable payment, or be distributed without charge to local residents;
(h) have complied with all the foregoing conditions of this subdivision for at least
one year immediately preceding the date of the notice publication; and
G) between September I and December 31 of each year publish and submit to the
secretary of state, along with a filing fee of $25, a sworn United States Post Office sac.
and -class statement of ownership and circulation or a statement of ownership and cir-
culation verified by a recognized independent circulation auditin
Period of not less than one year ending no earlier than the June 30 preceding the filin
deadline, provided that a filing published and submitted after December 31 and before
July 1 shall be effective from the date of filing through December 31 of that year. The
secretary of state shall make the list of newspapers whose filings have been accepted
• available for public inspection. The acceptance of a filing does not constitute a guaran-
tee by the state that any other qualification requirement has been met.
JHIY ib Kt`iNLD1 6c bKHVtI i
(� 311 NEWSPAPERS 331A.03
Subd. 2. Earlier qualification. Newspapers which have been qualified, on May 20,
1965, as mediums of official and legal publication shall remain qualified only if they
meet the requirements of subdivision 1, except as follows:
(a) If on May 20, 1965, any newspaper is a qualified medium of official and legal j 1
publication but is printed in a foreign language, or in English and a foreign language,
and otherwise qualifies as a medium of official and legal publication pursuant to the '
requirements of subdivision 1, it shall be a medium of official and legal publication so {'
long as it otherwise qualifies pursuant to the requirements of subdivision 1.
(b) If on May 20, 1965, any newspaper has been circulated in and near the munici-
pality which it purports to serve to the extent of at least 240 but less than 500 copies
regularly delivered to paying subscribers and otherwise qualifies as a medium of official
and legal publication pursuant to the requirements of subdivision 1, it shall be a
medium of official and legal publication so long as at least 240 copies are regularly so
circulated and delivered and it otherwise qualifies pursuant to the requirements of sub-
division 1.
Subd. 3. Publication; suspension; changes. The following circumstances al not
I
B ng shall 0 + t
all'ect the ualification of a ne q
inv
invalidate n othe rwise v
e a othe Ise alid
publication, or
invalidate a designation news pape r P P r
gnation as official news a r for p of county board proceed- • . I +
ings.
a
Suspension O p n of publication fora riod of
pe not more than three consecutive
months resulting from g the destruction of its known office of issue, equipment, or other �
facility by the elements, unforeseen accident, or acts of God or by reason of a labor dis-
pute.
(b) The consolidation of one newspaper with another published in the same
county, or a change in its name or ownership, or a temporary change in its known office i.
of issue. I
(c) Change-of the day of publication, the frequency of publication, or the change
of the known office of issue from one place to another within the same county. Except ?
. ty
P
as provided in this subdivision, suspension of publication, or a change of known office
of issue from one county to another,
or f '
Y failure to maint to n its known office of issue in
the county, shall deprive a newspaper of its standing as a medium of official and legal l
publication until the newspaper a
!n b e5 u ed u
Ba qualified p ursuant to subdivisio '.!
q on 1
P
Subd. 4. i
)Declaratory judgment of legality. Any person interested is the standing ;
asamedium
of
official and legal publication of a newspaper, may petition the district
court in the county in which the newspaper has its known office of issue for a declara-
tory judgment whether the newspaper is qualified as a medium of official and legal pub-
lication. Unless filed by the publisher, the petition and summons shall be served on the l +
publisher as in other civil actions. Service in other cases shall be made b '
t y publication
of the .. •:
petition and summons once each week for three successive weeks in the news-
paper or newspapers the coon may order and upon the persons as the court may direct.
Publications made in a newspaper after a judgment that it is qualified but before the
judgment is vacated or set aside shall be valid. Except as provided in this subdivision,
the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and the rules of civil procedure shall apply to
the action.
History: 1984 c 543 s 21: 1985 c 174 s 1; ISp1985 c 13 s 315; 1987 c 30 $ 1; 1987
c 286 s 1; 1988 c 682 s 42; 1990 c 395 $ 1; 1991 c 205 s 17 Ij !
331A.03 WHERE NOTICE PUBLISHED. FI ij
Subdivision 1. Generally. Except as provided in subdivision 2, a public notice shall i
be published in a qualified newspaper, and except as otherwise provided by law, in one
that is likely to give notice in the affected area or to whom it is directed. When a statute
or other law requires publication in a newspaper located in a designated municipality ! l A
� P y r A. ;
orarea and no qualified newspaper is located there, publication shall be made in a qual-
ified newspaper likely to give notice unless the particular statute or law expressly pro- - a
vides otherwise. If no qualified newspaper exists, then publication is not required.
JHII d_j 'Zib d7-lb KLIIOLI)Y LlKHVtIY 7
331 A.03 NEWSPAPERS 312
Subd. 2. Exception; certain cities of the fourth class. A public notice required to
t be published by a statutory or home rule charter city of the fourth class located in the
metropolitan area defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, is not required to be pub-
lished in a qualified newspaper if there is no qualified nondaily newspaper of general
circulation in the city, provided the notice is printed in a newsletter or similar printed
means of giving notice that is prepared by the city and either mailed or delivered to
each household in the city.
r ° History. 1984 c 543 s 22; 1991 c 53 s 1
331A.04 DESIGNATION OF A NEWSPAPER FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS.
Subdivision 1. The governing body of any local public corporation, when autho-
rized or required by statute or charter to designate a newspaper for publication of its
s official proceedings and public notices, shall designate a newspaper which is a qualified
medium of official and legal publication in the following priority.
Subd. 2. If there are one or more qualified newspapers, the known office of issue
of which are located within the local public corporation, one of them shall be desig-
nated.
Subd. 3. When no qualified newspaper has a known office of issue located in the
local public corporation, but one or more qualified newspapers maintain a secondary'
office there, one of them shall be designated.
Subd. 4. When no qualified newspaper has its known office of issue or a second -
ary office located within the local public corporation, then a qualified newspaper of gen-
eral circulation there shall be designated.
Subd. 5, If a local public corporation is without an official newspaper, or if the pub -
lisher refuses to publish a particular public notice, matters required to be published
shall be published in a newspaper designated as provided in subdivision 4. The govern-
ing body of a local public corporation with territory in two or more counties may, if
deemed in the public interest, designate a separate qualified newspaper for each county.
History: 1984 c 543 s 23
331A.05 FORM OF PUBLIC NOTICES.
Subdivision 1. All public notices shall be printed or otherwise disseminated in the
English language.
Subd. 2. Unless otherwise specified by a particular statute, or by order of a court,
publication of a public notice shall be as follows:
(a) the notice shall be published once;
(b) if the notice is intended to inform the public about a future event, the last pub -
lication shall occur not more than 14 days and not less than seven days before the event;
(c) if the notice is intended to inform the public about a past action or event, the
last publication shall occur not more than 45 days after occurrence of the action or
event,
Subd. 3. Except as otherwise directed by a particular statute requiring publication
of a public notice, a public notice shall be printed in a type face no smaller than six point
with a lower case alphabet of 90 point. Larger type faces may be used.
Subd. 4. Every public notice shall include a title or caption in a body type no small-
er than brevier or eight point referring to the content of the notice. Larger type faces
may be used.
Subd. 5. The governing body of a local public corporation may, to better inform
the public, increase the frequency of publication of a public notice beyond the mini-
mum required by a particular statute. It may use forms and styles for the notice as it
deems appropriate, including the use of display advertisements and graphics. It may
publish or disseminate the notice in other newspapers in addition to the newspaper
required to be designated under section 331A.04. Regardless of whether a particular
• statute specifies "legal notice," "public notice," "notice," or uses similar terms, the goy-
*NJ MINNESOTA
SUN
PUBLICATIONS
Sun-Current Sun-Post Sun•Sailor
December 11, 1996
Sharon Knutson
City Clerk
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199
Dear City Council Members;
The Brooklyn Center Sun -Post would like to be considered for designation as the legal newspaper for the
City of Brooklyn Center for the year 1997.
We know that readership and price are two important factors you consider. Please note that no one else
reports local community news stories that directly affect peoples' lives like Minnesota Sun Publications.
Every week, we cover local community events, politics, sports, business, police reports, religion, as well
as arts and entertainment. Within our coverage area, our readership tops all other newspapers in market
penetration with 77% of all adults saying they have read the publication sometime during the past four
weeks. *
• The rate structure for legals effective January 1, 1997 will be:
1 column width - $1.20 per line for first insertion
$ .60 per line for subsequent insertions
Discounts are available depending on format sent.
Notarized affidavits on each of your publications will be provided with no additional charge. The
deadline for regular length notices is 2:00 p.m. the Tuesday prior to publication. For notices that are six
pages or more, the copy must be submitted an additional 24 hrs in advance.
Please notify us of your decision, and we will send you details on deadlines, discounts and transmission
specifications. If you require more information to make your decision, please contact me or Meridel
Hedblom, our Legal Representative, at 896 -4809.
We appreciate your considering the Sun -Post as the official newspaper for Brooklyn Center in 1997. It
has been a pleasure serving you and we look forward to a mutually beneficial working relationship in the
coming year.
Sincerely;
` —Denis L. Mindak
• Publisher and Chief Operating Officer
*Source: Suburban Mpls. Readership Study, Urban & Associates
Bloomington Office: 7831 East Bush Lake Road • Bloomington, MN 55439 • Ph: (612) 896.4700
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C H
DATE: January 8, 1997
SUBJECT: Resolution Designating Depositories of City Funds
In January of each year, the City Council has passed a resolution designating the financial
institutions which are authorized as depositories of City funds. Marquette Bank Brookdale
is where the City has all of its checking accounts. The first eight institutions listed in
section two are where the City has various investment or debt service accounts. No
business is currently conducted at Juran & Moody, Inc., but they are listed to provide
competitive options for purchasing investments. No business is currently conducted with
the last two banks listed in section two, but they are listed because they are local banks and
may be used if it is in the City's interest to do so.
•
• Requests \depository
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
t adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS
WHEREAS, Section 7.01 of the City Charter provides the City Council with authority
over City funds, including the safekeeping and disbursement of public moneys; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.10 of the City Charter provides that City funds shall be
disbursed by check bearing the actual or facsimile signature of the city manager and the city
treasurer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. that Marquette Bank Brookdale is hereby designated as the depository of the
funds of the City of Brooklyn Center.
2. that the following named banks and brokers are hereby designated additional
depositories to be used for investment purposes:
• First National Bank of Minneapolis
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
First Trust Bank of St Paul
Norwest Bank Minneapolis
Firststar Bank of Minnesota
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund
Dain Bosworth
Smith Barney
Juran & Moody, Inc.
Firststar Bank of Brooklyn Center
Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Association
The city treasurer is authorized to deposit City funds guaranteed by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
and such additional funds not to exceed the amount of 90% of collateral pledged by the
depository to the City, and approved by the City.
3. that National Bancard Corporation/First Financial Bank is hereby designated
as the clearinghouse depository for credit card sales of the Liquor Stores.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
•
4. that the city manager, city treasurer, and deputy city treasurer are authorized
by the City Council to act for the City in any of its business with the depositories. All
checks drawn upon an account of the City shall bear the actual or facsimile signature
of the city manager and the city treasurer.
5. that the city manager is Michael J. McCauley, the city treasurer is Charles R.
Hansen, and the deputy city treasurer is Timothy R. Johnson.
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.
•
�U
MEMORANDUM
• DATE: January 8, 1997
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Service
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Improvement Projects
in Residential Areas in 1997
In accordance with the City's Special Assessment Policy, the City Council annually establishes
assessment rates for street improvement projects. It is the intent of the Council that special assessments
are levied against any property that can be deemed to benefit from such an improvement. Assessments
for residential properties are made on a unit basis which applies to all single family residential properties
benefitting from any street improvement project that year, and are intended to represent a specific
portion of the average cost of reconstructing a typical residential street. Assessments for non - residential
or multiple family residential projects are computed separately for each project.
In 1996, the Council adopted a unit rate for street reconstruction of $1,850 per parcel and for storm
drainage improvements of $625 per parcel that provided for an average 35 percent of the project cost to
be assessed. Staff recommends the proposed assessments for 1997 be increased to 37 percent of the
project cost, with a per unit rate for street reconstruction of $2,000 per parcel and for storm drainage
improvements of $650 per parcel. Total assessments for 1997 would then be $2,650 per parcel,
• compared to $2,475 in 1996, a 7 percent increase.
The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction will apply to properties in R- 1, R -2 or R -3
zoned districts. These rates will also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such
parcels (a) are being used as one - family or two- family residential sites at the time the assessment roll is
levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then - existing Subdivision Ordinance.
Land Use 1997 Assessment Rate
R -1 zoned, used as one - family $2,000 per lot (street)
sites that cannot be subdivided $ 650 per lot (storm drainage)
R -2 zoned, or used as a two - family $26.67 per front foot, $2,000 minimum (street)
sites that cannot be subdivided $ 8.67 per front foot, $650 minimum (storm)
R -3 zoned Assessable frontage x $26.67 (street) or $8.67 (storm)
Number of residential units
The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction will not apply to R -4, R -5, R -6, or R -7 zoned
districts. The assessment rates for street reconstruction for R -4, R -5, R -6, or R -7 zoned property will be
based on an evaluation of the project cost and the project benefit for each project.
For those properties zoned R1 or R2 having frontages on two or more streets, special assessments will be
• levied on only one of those frontages, at the owner's choice.
• Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1997 STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -34 established residential street and storm drainage
special assessment rates for street reconstruction projects; and
WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates are annually reviewed and approved
by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates should be adjusted annually to be
effective January 1; and
WHEREAS, the proposed street assesment rates for 1997 are equivalent to 37
percent of an average project cost; and
•
WHEREAS, the R-4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 zoned districts should be assessed based on
an evaluation of project cost and project benefit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
I. The residential street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street
reconstruction shall apply to properties in R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned districts. These
rates shall also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such
parcels (a) are being used as one - family or two - family residential sites at the time
the assessment roll is levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then-
existing Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction effective January 1, 1997
shall be as follows:
Land Use 1997 Assessment Rates
R -1 zoned, used as one - family $2,000 per lot (street)
t site that cannot be subdivided $ 650 per lot (storm drainage)
• Resolution No.
Land Use 1997 Assessment Rates
R -2 zoned, or used as a two - family $26.67 per front foot with a
site that cannot be subdivided $2,000 per lot minimum (street)
$8.67 per front foot with a
$650 per lot minimum (storm)
R -3 zoned Assessable frontage x $26.67 (street)
Number of residential units
Assessable frontage x $8.67 (storm)
Number of residential units
3. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction shall not apply to R -4, R-
5, R-6, or R -7 zoned districts. The assessment rates for street reconstruction for R-
4, R -5, R -6, or R -7 zoned property shall be based on an evaluation of the project
cost and the project benefit for each project.
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.
•
�L
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 3, 1997
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer ;v
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Quotations and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project
No. 1996 -18, Contract 1997 -13, Well No. 10 Routine Maintenance
At the November 12, 1996 City Council Meeting, the Council established Improvement Project
No. 1996 -18, Routine Well Maintenance at Well No. 10, which included the approval of
specifications and authorizing the solicitation of quotations.
The City's municipal water supply wells are maintained by the Public Utility personnel who
provide day to day inspections and adjustments required to ensure constant delivery of water to
the City. As part of the normal well maintenance schedule, the underground portion(column,
shaft, and pump) of each of the City's wells are "pulled" once every six years for inspection and
repair or replacement of components by contractors who specialize in that type of work. The
City's Capital Improvement Program recognizes and provides for this annual expenditure
• through the water utility fund.
Well No. 10 is due for inspection and servicing according to the maintenance schedule. The
types of servicing and repairs required each year are generally very typical. A standard
specification and quotation request is annually prepared and forwarded to the contractors that
have been proven competent in providing these types of specialized services.
Quotations have been received from two (2) separate contractors. The contractors were required
to submit a base bid for the general maintenance and servicing, along with additional unit costs
for specific repair items that may or may not be required upon inspection. The results of the
base bids received are as follows:
ALBERG WATER SERVICES, LLC $11,395
KEYS WELL DRILLING COMPANY $14,600
The unit prices and bids received compare favorably with prices typical for these types of
services. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution providing for
the award of well maintenance and repair services to Alberg Water Services, LLC.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1996 -18, CONTRACT 1997 -B, WELL NO. 10
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council of the need for
routine well maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the city does not possess the parts or equipment necessary to
perform the more specialized repairs and maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has developed plans and specifications for said
maintenance, repairs and replacements; and
WHEREAS, base quotations have been received from two contractors specializing
in providing for these types of services as follows:
Alberg Water Services, LLC $11,395
Keys Well Drilling Company $14,600
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City of
Y tY tY
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1. Alberg Water Services, LLC is hereby authorized to provide inspection,
repair, and maintenance services for Well No. 10, Improvement Project
No. 1996 -18, on the basis of the quotation received.
2. All costs related to this project shall be charged to 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.
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 9, 1997
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Servicer
SUBJECT: Resolution Amending Professional Services Contract for Design and Construction
Engineering Services, Improvement Project No. 1995 -04, Contract 1996 -I, Replacement
of Lift Station No. l
The City Council on August 28, 1995 by way of Resolution No. 95 -193 authorized a professional
services contract with MSA Consulting Engineers to provide design and construction engineering
services for the replacement of Lift Station #I and the associated forcemain. This resolution provided
for fees totaling $72,000, and noted that additional fees may need to be negotiated based on the final
design selection.
The original proposal submitted by MSA and approved by the Council was for reuse of the existing
building and wetwell, equipping the station with new pumps and electric controls, and providing for the
forcemain replacement. During the design phase, the consultant and staff worked together to review a
• number of options, and determined that the most cost effective approach was the total replacement and
relocation of the lift station and wetwell. This relocation allowed for caisson construction rather than
open pit construction. Also, MSA was able to conduct a detailed analysis of the forcemain and
determine that several portions of the main could be sliplined rather than excavated and replaced.
Based on this design work, MSA was able to design a project which cost an estimated $325,000 less than
conventional techniques. However, these improvements did require design work above and beyond that
anticipated in the original contract, and required additional soil borings. Additional construction
management time was required as well, to provide for additional inspection, shop drawings, relocation of
the INTRAC alarming system to the new wetwell and oversight of the new backup power system.
In summary, based on additional design and construction engineering work, MSA's professional services
fees are expected to total $114,000 for the project. These fees are reasonable and consistent with fees
proposed by other firms which submitted proposals. The additional design and construction work
resulted in substantial construction savings. And finally, a general rule of thumb is that engineering fees
should run between 10 -20 percent of construction cost. The construction contract on this project is
$897,000, meaning that engineering fees could be expected to be anywhere from $90,000- 180,000.
MSA's expected total fees are on the lower end of that range, at about 13 percent of contract cost.
I recommend the Council approve the attached resolution which amends the city's professional services
contract with MSA Consulting Engineers to a total estimated fee of $114,000.
NOTE: Work is essentially complete on the new lift station and forcemain. The lift station has been up
• and running for several weeks, and the old station has been demolished. Final site cleanup will
occur this spring.
1
• A December 9, 1996
File: 125- 002 -30
11ASULTI1G ENGINEERS
1326 Energy Pork Drive
Mr. Scott Brink, P.E.
St. Paul, MN 55108
City of Brooklyn Center
612.644.4389 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
1.800.888.2923 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Fax: 612.644 -9446
RE: LIFT STATION 1 AND FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT
Dear Mr. Brink:
This correspondence details the cost savings and increased level of service which was
provided by MSA, Consulting Engineers (MSA) on the upgrade of Lift Station No. 1 and
the replacement/sliplining of 1,800 LF of 18" and 16" diameter forcemain.
MSA provided the City of Brooklyn Center with a proposal to provide engineering design
and construction field services ($73,124.00). In preparing our cost estimates, we costed
out the tasks and expenses that would be required to equip the lift station with new s um
P P
and electrical controls.
•\ - g
In Auust 199"
� �, we were selected to provide design services. We worked with the City's
Public Works and Engineering Department staff to better define the scope of services and
to offer input and advice as to how the City might construct a more cost- effective and
maintainable facility. Throughout this process, our understanding and the resulting
chan _es in project scope v' g g
.. provided the follows u g
P J P p n upgrades and estimated cost savings to
the City of Brooklyn Center:
Upgrade Cost Savings
Provided specification design criteria for caisson construction $50,000
versus open pit construction.
Provided an analysis of forcemain rehabilitation using $200,000
sliplining versus excavation and reconstruction, and innovative
design of open cut segment.
Relocated the lift station structure 200 LF west into an area of $75,000
better soils which afforded better conditions for caisson
construction.
IS CES ESTIMATED SAVINGS
1N: $325,000
INEAPOUS
PRICR LAKE
ST. PAUL
WASEIA
An Equal Opportunity Employer
iVlr. Scott Brink, P.E.
• December 9, 1996
Page Two
To accomplish these upgrades, MSA spent additional time during the design phase, and
contracted for additional soils borings. Once the design and bidding phase of the project
was completed, our staff met again with City Public Works and Engineering Departments
to discuss the level of construction services that should be provided. The original
proposal discussed a work scope of 152 hours, which included time for the project
management, surveying, and inspection of civil, electrical, and mechanical construction.
Again, these services were based upon the limited scope project of refitting the existing
structure.
Constant speed pumps with new, significantly larger wetwell was utilized, rather than
variable frequency drive pumps and existing wetwell, as initially proposed. This was
requested by City staff to limit complexity of the control system to improve reliability and
maintainability. The decision to construct a new structure and wetwell necessitated that,
MSA specify moving the SCADA RTU from the old structure to the new lift station and
then demolition of the old structure. Due to the cost saving and reliability enhancing
options, MSA developed in the design phase, the amount of inspection, and shop drawing
increased to 430 hours.
• Given that these additional services resulted in cost and operational savings for the City
of Brooklyn Center, and that these services were performed with the approval and
oversight of City staff, we respectfully request that MSA be reimbursed for its additional
costs. This results in a total amount of $114,000 which is $40,876 over the amount of
573,124, as detailed in our original proposal.
We would be pleased to review this letter and address any questions or comments at your
convenience. For your information, we have attached a summary billing showing the
personnel and services provided on this commission.
Yours truly,
MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
*John. art, P.E.
President
JBS:tw
Attachment
• 002- 0301.dec
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -04,
CONTRACT 1996 -1, REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 1
WHEREAS, Resolution 95 -193 authorized a contract for professional services with MSA
Consulting Engineers for design and construction engineering for Improvement Project No. 1995 -04,
Contract 1996 -1, Replacement of Lift Station No. 1; and
WHEREAS, this resolution provided for the amendment of this professional services
agreement based on the selection of a final design; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer and Director of Public Services recommend that this
professional services contract be amended to provide for additional design and construction engineering
services which resulted in a construction cost savings to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that:
1. The city's contract for professional services with MSA Consulting Engineers for
design and construction engineering for Improvement Project No. 1995 -04,
Contract 1996 -1, Replacement of Lift Station No. 1 is hereby amended to provide
for total fees estimated at $114,000.
2. All costs associated with Improvement Project No. 1995 -04 shall be financed by
the Sanitary Sewer Utility.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member
P g g Y Y
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.
\,Y AF
BROOKLYN CENTER
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael McCauley City Manager
FROM: Ron Boman Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Rebuilding of Scott Air Pac's
DATE: January 7, 1997
Approval was given in 1997 budget to rebuild our fire departments 35 Scott Air
Pac's(Firefighters breathing apparatus) because of the critical nature of this piece of
• equipment and the fact that Clary's Safety Equipment of Rochester has the Minnesota
Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium Bid until June 1997 Bid # NZ -95 -2 for Scott Air
Pacs I am recommending that we award the contract to them for the rebuilding /retrofitting
of our Scott Air Pac's.
The Work that is going to be done is the replacing of the backpac frame assembly which
will reduce fatigue and allow reater freedom of movement f t
9 or he firefighters and will p ut
the weight of the air -pac on the hips where it should be rather that on the shoulders where
is now. The conversion also incorporates a built -in distress alarm that will automatically
be activated whenever the air pac is turned on, this is important for two reasons, should
a firefighter go down at a fire scene we can easily locate them, or should a firefighter
become trapped or needs help they can trip the alarm themselves.
The cost to retrofit the 35 Scott Air Pacs is $1,000 each for a total of $35,000, to purchase
all new breathing apparatus and tanks would exceed $125,000, which make the rebuilding
a excellent investment.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
• its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING
REBUILDING /RETROFITTING OF 35 SCOTT AIR PACS
WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1997 fire department capital
outlay budget for the rebuilding and /or retrofitting of 35 Scott Air Pacs in the amount of
$40,000.00; and
WHEREAS, Clarey's Safety Equipment has the Minnesota Fire Agencies
Purchasing Consortium Bid # NZ -95 -2 which expires June 30, 1997, and we are purchasing off
the Minnesota Fire Agencies Bid for the rebuilding /retrofitting as follows:
Clarey's Safety Equipment $35,000.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the rebuilding and /or the retrofitting of 35 Scott Air Pacs in the amount of
$35,000.00 is hereby approved.
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.
•
�h
OKLYB CEt.V
BROOKLYN CENTER - t°
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Scott Kline, Chief of Police
DATE: January 6, 1997
SUBJECT: 1997 Squad Car Purchases
The Police Department needs to place an order for replacement squad cars for 1997 before
January 15, 1997. Attached is a copy of the Hennepin County bid price from Superior Ford for
the 1997 Crown Victoria Interceptor squads which were requested in the 1997 budget.
The approved budget allowed for the purchase of five Crown Victoria replacement squads which
comes to a total of $98,850.00 . We request permission to submit a timely order for this
purchase.
(Note that this does not include the cost for the all purpose vehicle which was also included in
the 1997 budget. The purchase request for that vehicle will be submitted shortly.)
• Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) SQUAD CARS
WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1997 Budget for the purchase of
four squad cars; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a member of both the Hennepin County
Cooperative Purchasing Group and the Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Group and the Minnesota
Cooperative Purchasing Venture each have contracts for squad cars which the City could take part
in thereby eliminating the need for the formal advertising and bidding process; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Group received the lowest
bid and has awarded such bid to Superior Ford; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City of
Y tY Y
Brooklyn Center that the purchase of four squad cars from Superior Ford using the Hennepin
q p
County Cooperative Purchasing Group contract in the amount of $79,099 is hereby approved.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Jniti 5ur=mlum ruru I 16 , 1 r. 1
-su - PER.10R�4WO
A X FLEET & GOVERNMENT SALES DEPARTMENT
9700 56TH AVE. NO.
T0: PLYMOUTH, MN 55442
ll�T # OF PAGES SENT 19 — PHONE 612- 559 -9131
FAX . 612 -519 -6336
TO: n /° �L.; �-QfZ 0 DATE �9
o e ATTN
/lt/rf PHONE
FAX 7Z7
�8Lllk -IAN ,
YEAR 1997 MODEL CROWN VIC POLICE INTERCEPTOR COLOR -EXT INT GRAPHITE
POLICE INTERCEPTOR PACKAGE EXTERIOR COLORS:
4.6L OHC EFI V$ ENGINE / ELECT. AOQ TRANSMISSION WT - VIBRANT WHIT
POWER LOCKS, WINDOWS, MIRRORS J LD - WEDGEWOOD BLUE
POWER DRIVER SEAT BA - LT PRAIRIE TAN
• BUCKET SEATS FRONT - CLOTH FRONT & REAR F7 - VERMONT GREEN
SPEED CONTROL - TILT STEERING WHEEL FL TOREADOR RED
AIR CONDITIONING HB - IVORY
REAR WINDOW DEFROSTER K1 - LT DENIM BLUE
ENGINE BLOCK HEATER NA - FOREST GREEN
ABS BRAKES TS - SILVER FROST
LH SPOTLIGHT UA - . BLACK
mom
ALSO, FORD FLEET IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (if you have cm) FIN = C 5ej
NOTE: PAYMENT IS DUE UPON DELIVERY OF VEHICLES
TOTAL S 19,649.00
TRADE ALLOWANCE - UNIT# YR MAKE /MODEL
•IN MILEAGE
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS QUOTATION.
PLEASE ALL IF U HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. TOTAL NET 5 19,649.00
SALES
TAX & LICFj%E
NOT INCLUDED
1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR - OPTION PRICE LIST /?4- t, g
• ADD /OR
OPTION: COST DELETE
1. FRONT & REAR'CARPETED FLOOR MATS $ 45 $
2. AM /FM STEREO CASSETTE 135
3. TRACTION LOK REAR AXLE - DELETE ABS BRAKES (450)
4. RUBBER FLOOR - IN LIEU OF CARPETING 25
5. DELETE ENGINE BLOCK HEATER (20)
6. DECKLID RELEASE SWITCH LOCATED ON DRIVERS DOOR- BATTERY CONTROL 40
7. DECKLID RELEASE SWITCH LOCATED ON DRIVERS DOOR - IGNITION CCNTRL 40
8. DECKLID WARNING LIGHTS - UNDER DECKLID 144
9. MULTIPLE UNITS - KEYED ALIKE (NEW CODES IN 1997) 37
10. FRONT DOOR MOLDINGS INSTALLED BY FACTORY - SPECIAL ORDER NC
11. HUB CAPS IN LIEU OF FULL WHEEL COVERS BY FACTORY -SPEC ORD NC
12. ADDITIONAL ROOF REINFORCEMENT 63
13. WSW TIRES - SPECIAL ORDER 85
14. SPECIAL PAINT - SINGLE COLOR (MINIMUM QTY OF 5 UNITS)
. BUMPER WILL NOT MATCH - CHOICE= BLACK,SILVER,WHITE 202
15. SPECIAL PAINT - TWO*.TONE - (MINIMUM QTY OF 5 UNITS)
BUMPER WILL NOT MATCH - 7 TWO TONE COMBINATIONS AVAILABLE 475
16. SPECIAL PAINT - MATCHING BUMPERS (MINIMUM QTY OF 5 UNITS)
LIMITED NUMBER OF COLORS AVAILABLE 191
17. DELETE LH SPOTLIGHT (135)
13. VINYL REAR SEAT IN LIEU OF CLOTH 65
19. CLOTH SPLIT BENCH SEAT IN LIEU OF BUCKETS 90
20. PARTS MANUAL 4 85
21. SERVICE MANUAL f 95
22. POWERTRAIN /EMISSIONS MANUAL 135
23. ELECTRICAL TROUBLESHOOTING MANUAL 40 .
24. 3 YEAR /OR /100,000 MI (WHICHEVER COMES FIRST)
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY - $50 DEDUCTIBLE PER VISIT 1750
25. INOPERATIVE COURTESY LIGHT SWITCHES 15 -
$ y' 7S1
-�-�
TOTAL OF OPTIONS o T�"
•
TOTAL P.02
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: January 8, 1997
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 and submitted
appropriate applications and paid proper fees.
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on January 13, 1997:
• BOWLING ALLEY
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N.
COURTESY BENCH
Courtesy Bench Company 4215 Winnetka Ave. N., New Hope
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
Duke's Mobil 6501 Humboldt Ave. N.
Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 6845 Shingle Creek Parkway
Mobil #504 6849 Brooklyn Blvd.
Neil's Conoco 1505 69th Ave. N.
Osseo - Brooklyn Bus Company 4435 68th Ave. N.
SuperAmerica #4058 1901 57th Ave. N.
SuperAmerica #4160 6545 West River Road
Total 6830 Brooklyn Blvd.
U. S. West 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway
Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Metropolitan Mechanical Contractor, Inc. 7340 Washington Ave. S., Eden Prairie
Practical Systems 14226 Norden Drive, Rogers
• Royalton Heating and Cooling 4120 85th Ave. N., Brooklyn Park
Licenses -2- January 8, 1997
•
Spartan Mechanical, Inc. 9801 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie
POOL AND BILLIARD TABLES
Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive
PUBLIC DANCE
Hilton Hotel 2200 Freeway Blvd.
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
Rick Hartmann 6831 Fremont Place N.
Trina Ward 5743 Girard Ave. N.
Randy Snodgrass 4741 Twin Lake Ave. N.
Renewal:
Miller Management Co. Willow Lane Apartments
Vernon Hughes 5240 Drew Ave. N.
Timothy Damberger 2118 Ericon Drive
• Patrick Menth 5302 Fremont Ave. N.
Lenny Mazurek 4200 Lakebreeze Ave. N.
Lyle Miller 3501 47th Ave. N.
M.B.L. Investment Company 3613 47th Ave. N.
George Hanson 1510 69th Ave. N.
TAXICAB
Minnesota Taxi, Inc. 7608 Knox Ave. S., Richfield
Cab 47 Said Abou -Auf
Town Taxi 7000 57th Ave. N., Crystal
Cab 133 Clifford Piper
United Cab Services P. O. Box 6643, Minneapolis
Cab 15 Hesham Hassanein
Cab 35 Mohamed Madkour
Cab 101 George Nuquay
Cab 129 James Ledlum
TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS
Applebee's 1347 Brookdale Center
Duke's Mobil 6501 Humboldt Ave. N.
Hilton Hotel 2200 Freeway Blvd.
• K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive
Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive
Licenses -3- January 8, 1997
i
Mobil #504 6849 Brooklyn Blvd.
Neil's Conoco 1505 69th Ave. N.
Stummy's Cigar 6066 Shingle Creek Parkway, #179
Su erAmerica #4058
P 1901 57th Ave. N.
SuperAmerica #4160 6545 West River Road
Total 6830 Brooklyn Blvd.
Value Food Market 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd.
i
- 7
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
• Notice is hereby iven that a public hearin will be held on the t day of 1997
Y g � P � � Y �_ , 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 3 of the City Ordinances regarding
refunds of permit fees.
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in
advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING REFUNDS OF PERMIT FEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 3 -103 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center
is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 3 -103 G Permit Fees
• . FE e e 1 n e f an
1 be • r funl • y hermit fee collected to
accordance with this chanter when the fee so collected is fifty dollars ($50) or less For
Hermits which are canceled after issuance where no authorized work has been done a refund
of fifty percent (50 %) of the permit fees collected in excess of $50 may be granted: in no case
shall the fees retained exceed $100 If any work authorized by the permit has been started
the amount of fees retained over and above the $100 maximum shall be determined by the
Buildina_ Official commensurate with the percentage of work completed Plan checking fees
are not refundable
All claims for refunds shall be made in writing by the original permittee and
shall be made within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the payment of said fees
Appeals for relief from the above refund policy shall:
7-be made in wittin, by the original permittee
- be made within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the payment of
said fees.
- include a detailed explanation of circumstances which are the grounds for the
app eal .
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days
following its legal publication.
ORDINANCE NO.
•
Adopted this day of , 1997.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date
of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
•
• CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the Jalb day of January 1997, 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 amendment to Chapter 3 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances
regarding the Minnesota State Building Code.
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in
advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 3 -101 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is
hereby amended in the following manner:
• Section 3 -101 Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established
pursuant to MN Star 16B to 4 6B.73 Minnesota Statutes. sections 16B.59 to 16B.75 one
copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk, is hereby adopted as the building code
for the City of Brooklyn Center. Such code is hereby incorporated in this ordinance as
completely as if set out in full.
A. The following chapters are adopted by referenee as paft of the 1990 Mimieseta
State B�ui4ding Go of the 1994 Minnesota State Building Code are adopted and incorporated
as of the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center:
4. GhVter 1305 Adoption of the 1988 Uniform Building Gode by Referenee
Th 1 7 98 A? 1 A 1 7 1 !'j f .a R T '
Tn�r �- rr��n rTr . E�e'o^zrt@i'szam�e�«a -ae�z�
amendment to E3hapter 51 of the UBE3 and m longer fatind in SBG— Rule
i
•
• E30ft el
• ORDINANCE NO.
6. Ghapter 1325 Solar Ener.gy Systems
7. Gliapter 1339 Teeftnieft! Requirements for Fallettt Shelters
8. E3hapter 1335 Floodpreefing Regulations (wheit required)
9. GiMtef 1340 Faeilities for the liandieapped
12. Ghapter 13-55 Phtntb* Gode Administrative Rule 4715
14. Ghapter 1365 Variation of Stiow Loadt
15. Ghapter 13:70 Madel Energy Code Administrative Rule 4679
16. Ghapter 1305.9150 Sttbpart4
a. UBG A-ppeftdix Ghapters 1, 12, Division 1, 26, , 55 and 40
14. Ghapter 1305.6905 speeial fire suppression systems with option 3808(e)
19. Ghapter 1335 FlaodprooFM Regulatiam, Parts 1335.9299 to ,
and FPR Seetiom 200.2 to 1405.3
1. 1300 - Minnesota Building Code
2. 1301 - Building Official Certification
3. 1302 - State Building Construction Approvals
4. 1305 - Adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code including �A 2endix
Chapter
a. 3 Division -I. Detention and Correctional Facilities
® ORDINANCE NO.
tom. 12. Division II. Sound Transmission Control
c, 29. Minimum Plumbing Fixtures
5 1307 - Elevators and Related Devices
6. 1315 - Adoption of the 1993 National Electrical Code
7 1325 - Solar Energy Systems
8.. 1330 - Fallout Shelters
9 1335 - F1oodproofing Regulations
10. 1340 - Facilities for the Handicapped
1. 1346 - Adoption of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code
12. 1350 - Manufactured Homes
• _13. 1360- Prefabricated Homes
14. 1365 - Snow Loads
15. 1370 - Storm Shelters
16. 4715 - Minnesota Plumbing Code
17. 7670 - Minnesota Energy
B. The following optional appendix chapters of the 1994 Uniform Building Code are
hereby adopted and incorporated as hart of the building code for the City of
Brooklyn Center:
L 3 Division III 1992 One- and Two - Family Dwelling Code
7 15.. Reroofing
L. 19 Exposed Residential Concrete
4. 31 Division II Membrane Structure
•
5. 33 Excavation and Grading
ORDINANCE NO.
C. The following optional chapters of Minnesota Rules are hereby adopted and
incorporated as part of the buildine code for the City of Brooklyn Center:
1. 1306 Swcial Fire Protection Systems with option g
2. 1310. Building Security
3. 1335 Floodproofing regulations parts 1335 0600 to 1335-1200.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following
its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1997.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
•
8O.
•
MEMO
To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist
Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 96017
Date: January 6, 1997
On the January 13, 1997 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 96017
submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi requesting a Planned Unit Development approval to
construct an approximately 18,000 sq. ft. automobile dealership on the property.
Attached for your review are copies of two Planning Commission Information Sheets for
Planning Commission Application No. 96017 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 a
copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 96 -3.
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their October 17, 1996 and
December 12, 1996 meetings and also by the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group at their
November 7, 1996 and November 26, 1996 meetings. This matter was recommended for
approval at the Planning Commission's December 12, 1996 meeting through Planning
Commission Resolution No. 96 -3.
It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the
application. A resolution approving the application is offered for the City Council's
consideration.
An ordinance amendment redescribing the property to be rezoned with this Planned Unit
Development will be presented at a later date. The applicant is seeking plat approval to combine
the parcels into a single lot, which will then be given a new legal description.
•
• Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO 96017 SUBMITTED BY BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 96017 submitted by Brookdale
Mitsubishi proposes rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) and C -1 (Service /Office) to PUD /G2
(Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of 7.035 acres of land located at 7223, 7227, 7231 and
7235 Brooklyn Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned
property and site and building plan approval for an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. Mitsubishi
dealership and the use of an existing 6,081 sq. ft. building for associated uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on October
17, 1996 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building
plan were received and reviewed with the Planning Commission continuing the public hearing and
referring the application to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and
comment; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this
matter on November 7, 1996 and November 26, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group because of a lack of
b rY
a quorum made no recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding this application but
offered instead minutes relating to the comments received from interested persons and the
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on
December 12, 1996 received an additional staff report and took further testimony during a
continued public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning ommission recommended approval of Application No.
g PP PP
96017 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 96 -3 on December 12, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 96017 at its January 13,
1997 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the rezoning and site and building
plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained
in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit
Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the
Planning Commission's recommendation contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 96 -3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that Application No. 96017 submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi be approved in
light of the following considerations:
1. That the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is currently being updated, be revised
during this process so that the land use designation map designate the area under
consideration as being appropriate for a general commerce use rather than the split
commerce and service /office designation that it currently has.
2. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered to be compatible
with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the
City's Zoning Ordinance, given the revision to the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization
of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to, and
of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding
land.
• 4. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Rezoning and Planned Unit
Development proposal will, with the exception of allowing automobile repair adjacent
to R -3 zoned property, conform with City ordinance standards and is justified on the
basis of the development plan submitted containing extraordinary screening of the site
including a large earthen berm and coniferous trees which should diminish any impact
on surrounding land uses.
5. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal appear to be a good utilization
of the property under consideration in that it allows for a reasonable redevelopment of
the property in a unified manner containing appropriate buffering and screening.
6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating
rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and
that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
to approve Application No. 96017 subject to the following conditions and considerations:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with
respect to applicable codes, prior to the issuance of permits.
• 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans area subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits
• I A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to
be determined based on cost estimates) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
permits to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on- ground mechanical equipment
shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet
the NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
7. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
8. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee.
9. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and
• inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits.
10. The applicant i
pp s subject to the requirements and regulations of the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission with respect to this site. The storm drainage
system shall be acceptable to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
and the applicant shall comply with any conditions imposed by the body prior to the
issuance of permits.
11. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an
approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with
Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits.
12. The plans submitted shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to be
consistent with the revised plan showing and 8 ft. high earthen berm and landscape
treatment. Said plans, which must be modified, include the drainage and utility plan,
the site lighting plan, and any other plan showing the site and building proposed with
this project.
13. The applicant has agreed to not use any outdoor public address system for paging
employees on the site.
• 14. The property shall be replatted into a single parcel with the triangular piece of
property located in Brooklyn Park being dedicated to this site through a legal
• encumbrance. Said plat shall receive final approval by the City Council and be filed
with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of building permits.
15. Modifications to accesses on Brooklyn Boulevard are subject to approval by
Hennepin County and their permit process.
16. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits'. Said
agreement shall acknowledge the use of this site as an automobile sales and service
dealership as proposed under the development plans and shall acknowledge all
previously stated conditions of approval and assure compliance with development
plans submitted by the applicant.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
• Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Planning Commission Information Sheet
• Application No. 96017
Applicant: Brookdale Mitsubishi
Location: 7223, 7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD /C -2
The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process for the development of an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. Mitsubishi
dealership on a 7.035 acre site located on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, northerly of
Shingle Creek. The property under consideration consists of the property addressed as 7223,
7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center and a small triangular parcel of
land located in Brooklyn Park which is adjacent to this property. The rezoning proposal is for a
PUD /C -2 designation for this site. The property is bounded on the north by the common
boundary line between the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park with the Toyota City
dealership and a small triangular shaped parcel of land, which is bound to the Brooklyn Center site
through deed restriction, on the opposite side of the boundary; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard
with C -1 zoned land containing the ReMax real estate office building on the opposite side; on the
south by R -3 zoned land containing the Creek Villa townhomes; and on the southwest by Shingle
Creek and R -3 zoned land containing the Unity Place co -op on the opposite side of the creek.
This property is currently zoned C -2 (Commerce) and C -1 (Service /Office) and contains the site
of the former Red Lobster Restaurant, which is addressed 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard and an off-
site parking lot dedicated for the sole use of the Red Lobster Restaurant, which is addressed as
7227 Brooklyn Boulevard; the site of the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP),
which contains a 6,081 sq. ft. building and an access road leading from the building to Brooklyn
Boulevard and is addressed as 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard; and a vacant 1.409 acre parcel of land
addressed as 7233 Brooklyn Boulevard, which is located between the Red Lobster off -site
parking lot and Brooklyn Boulevard, southerly of the access road leading to CEAP.
All of the parcels listed above have been acquired and Brookdale Mitsubishi plans, if the PUD
proposal is approved, to demolish the Red Lobster building to be replaced by a new automobile
showroom, office and service center. They also propose to eventually convert the CEAP building
to dealership use for automotive parts storage and car clean up functions related to their use and
the adjacent Toyota City dealership in Brooklyn Park. Brookdale Mitsubishi has acquired the
CEAP building and has an agreement with them to lease back their former building for up to one
year in order to allow CEAP the time to find a new site to relocate. Once the building is vacant,
Brookdale Mitsubishi would convert it for its use.
Automobile sales and service are special uses in the City's C -2 (Commerce) zoning district.
These uses are not comprehended under the C -1 (Service /Office) zoning district. Automotive
repair is not allowed to abut R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned property at a property line or at a street line.
Because of this, the applicant has proposed to pursue their request for the automobile dealership
• 12 -12 -96
Page 1
• through the Planned Unit Development process and is seeking rezoning based on a site
development plan to a PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) zoning designation.
Such a zoning designation would allow the proposed use through a development agreement
between the City and Brookdale Mitsubishi outlining the conditions, development restrictions and
limitations involved with their proposal.
A Planned Unit Development proposal involves rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed
by an alpha- numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district
provides regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The
rules and regulations governing that district (in this case C -2) would apply to the development
proposal. One of the purposes of a Planned Unit Development district is to give the City Council
the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and
structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the
development plans. In this case, the applicant would be seeking modification to allow automobile
service on property abutting R -3 zoned property based on special modifications they would make
to their plan.
The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures
outlined in Section 3 5-2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the City's rezoning evaluation
policy and review guidelines which are contained in Section 35 -208. The policy and review
guidelines are attached for the commission's review. The applicant, Mr. Ted Terp, has submitted
a letter
and written statement regarding their proposal along with comments as to how the
g g P P g Y
believe their ro osal addresses the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. The
P P g P Y �
•
applicant pp cant has also submitted a set of site and building plans, which were reviewed by the Planning
Commission at the October 17, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.. A modification has been
made to the site plan during review of the plans with the neighborhood affected by the rezoning
proposal. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to the Planning Commission
Information Sheet of to r 17
Oc be , 1996 which is attached and which contains the review and
analysis of the applicant's proposal and the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines
contained in the ordinance.
HIT R F APPLICATION
S Q Y O THE
This application was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 17,
1996 at which time the applicant's proposal, their comments regarding how they believe their
proposal meets the City's rezoning evaluation review guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 and
how they believe their proposal is consistent with Section 35 -355 regarding Planned Unit
Developments were reviewed. The Planning Commission reviewed the application, the
applicant's comments, and opened a public hearing at which time public input was taken. A
number of people appeared and spoke with respect to the application. The majority of people in
attendance resided in the Creek Villa townhomes, which are to the south of this site. Concerns
were expressed regarding undesirable noise associated with the proposed use, lighting and its
• 12 -12 -96
Page 2
potential adverse affects, traffic and the problems experienced by neighbors of cars being test
• driven on the Creek Villa private streets from existing automobile dealerships in the area and the
general concern with respect to aesthetics of an automobile dealership. (See copy of the Planning
Commission minutes from October 17, 1996 relating to this Planning Commission application,
attached.) The Planning Commission took action to table consideration of this application and to
continue the public hearing and directed the matter for further review and comment from the
Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group.
The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met on two occasions, November 7, 1996 and
November 26, 1996 to review this matter. Copies of the minutes from these Neighborhood
Advisory Group meetings are attached for the Commission's review. At the November 7 meeting
the proposal was reviewed and public comment was taken. Because no members of the
Northwest Neighborhood Group were able to attend that meeting, it was suggested that another
meeting of the group be scheduled and was finally established for November 26, 1996. One
Neighborhood Advisory Group member was able to attend the November 26 meeting at which
time a somewhat revised plan to provide additional screening on the south portion of the
proposed dealership site was presented and discussed. Attached for the Commission's review is a
copy of the minutes from the November 26, 1996 Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting.
Because only one member was present, no recommendation was developed by the advisory
group. Therefore, the comments of the neighborhood are presented to the Planning Commission
without a recommendation from the advisory group.
SITE AND BUII,DING PLAN
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which eliminates 56 parking spaces along the
southeasterly side of the site so that an additional landscaped area and an approximate 8 ft. high
earthen berm can be established. They propose to plant 8 ft. high Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine
trees along the top of this berm to provide additional screening of this site for the townhouses on
the south side of the creek. They have also provided a cross sectional diagrammatic plan showing
site lines from the townhouses to the proposed dealership location and the affect of such a berm
and plantings.
As indicated, this revised plan would eliminate 56 parking spaces from the previous plan. Given
the proposed 24,928 sq. ft. of building on the site (18,000 sq. ft. automotive sale and service
building and a 6,000 plus sq. ft. CEAP building which would be converted to Mitsubishi use) a
parking requirement of 110 parking spaces would be needed to accommodate the uses on the site.
Even looking at this site in a conservative manner and requiring parking based on the retail
parking formula, a total of 137 parking spaces would need to be provided. The applicant
proposes to provide a total of 294 parking spaces, which breaks down to his perceived need for
36 customer parking spaces, 34 employee parking spaces and 91 service parking spaces with the
balance of 133 parking spaces for display /inventory parking. The site, as proposed, should
accommodate the minimum parking requirements given our zoning ordinance requirements.
• 12 -12 -96
Page 3
G_ RAD ING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIE S
•
This site is affected by both wetland and floodplain areas adjacent to Shingle Creek. The drainage
and ponding plans have been submitted to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
for review, and, it is my understanding, that they have been approved subject to some standard
conditions imposed by the Watershed District. Their drainage plans show the location of two
holding ponds, one to the west end of the site and another at the very southeast portion of the
site, northerly of Shingle Creek.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the City's landscape point system.
Approximately 30 Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine are provided on the 8 ft. high berm now
proposed for the south portion of the site. Four - hundred and sixty two landscape points are
required for this seven plus acre site. The landscape plan submitted indicates 616 landscape
points based on the landscape point system. Twelve Green Ash are provided in various places
around the perimeter of the site. Decorative trees such as Amur Maple, Serviceberry and two
Hawthorn are located in the greenstrip areas and around the building. Numerous shrubs (over
270) such as Cotoneaster, Spirea, Yew and Viburnum are located primarily around the buildings.
The commission may wish to review further the south portion of the site to see if any additional
screening should be required where this property abuts with R -3 zoned property to the southwest.
• The screening provided with the berm and coniferous tree screening appears to do a good job
with respect to the homes in the Creek Villa townhome complex immediately to the south. Other
townhomes in the Unity Place Co -op in particular are a long way away from this property, but
may still need some screening from parking lots and activity areas. A screened fence in this
location might be appropriate.
PROCEDURE AND RE OMMENDATION
The public hearing for this PUD /C -2 rezoning and site and building plan has been continued until
Thursday, December 12, 1996. As indicated previously, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory
Group has made no recommendation with respect to this application but has forwarded its record
of the review to the Planning Commission. We have sent notices to those required to receive
notice of this zoning proposal, in addition to persons in the Creek Villa homeowners association,
which have requested to be so notified. The Planning Commission should take action to request
additional input and comment regarding the proposal and then close the public hearing for
deliberation.
The key to the Planning Commission's consideration of this matter is the rezoning evaluation
policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the
provisions and procedures in Section 35 -355 regarding Planned Unit Developments also
• 12 -12 -96
Page 4
• contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant contends that his development proposal is in
the best interest of the community as a whole given their ability to redevelop and to fully utilize
this site which has been abandoned, and in one case never developed. They believe this proposal
would provide an appropriate development use of the property that could be in the best interest of
the community. The Commission's attention is again directed to the Planning Commission
Information Sheet from October 17, 1996 relating to the applicant's arguments and the staff
comments with respect to this proposal.
This proposal could be considered to be in the best interest of the community if it is properly
developed in a manner that the Planning Commission believes is appropriate. The reason this
proposal is being pursued under the PUD process is because it allows the City Council ultimately
the flexibility to approve an automobile service operation to abut an R -3 zoned property given
what must be determined to be appropriate screening and separation.
The points of contention raised by persons, particularly in the Creek Villa homeowner's
association, regarding noise, light, traffic and aesthetics are important. The applicant believes he
has responded to all of these concerns and has submitted a revised plan to provide what is
believed to be better screening and an appropriate layout. Again, the Commission's attention is
directed to the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. All rezoning requests must be
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and not constitute "spot zoning" which is defined
as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to
the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. A matter that needs to be considered
t and resolved, and can be resolved if the Commission believes the proposal is appropriate and in
the best interest of the community, is of the current inconsistency of this proposal with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The land use revisions map contained in the Comprehensive Plan which was
adopted in 1980 designates this area for the split zoning designation that it currently has. That
allows C -1, or service/office uses, south of the more intense C -2 use to the north. This provision
in the Comprehensive Plan must be revised if the proposal is to go forward. If the Commission
believes the plan is appropriate, it must direct that the Comprehensive Plan be revised during the
updating process that is currently underway. If this proposal is to go forward, clear direction to
amend the revised Comprehensive Plan should be undertaken so that the revisions would be
consistent with a newly adopted Comprehensive Plan by the City.
If, on the other hand, the Commission believes this proposal to be inappropriate, a
recommendation should be made to the City Council that the proposal is inconsistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and should site the rationale for it and base any recommended denial
on the fact of this inconsistency.
Planned Unit Development proposals are an appropriate way to carry forward changes and to
recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. The key issue before the Planning Commission
is whether or not this rezoning proposal, under the Planned Unit Development process and the
development plans and subsequent development agreement, protect all interests in a manner that
• 12 -12 -96
Page 5
i
is in the best interest of the community. The Commission should be prepared to discuss and
• deliberate this matter for purposes of making a recommendation to the City Council. I have
prepared two draft resolutions regarding the disposition of this application for the Planning
Commission's consideration. One draft resolution recommends a favorable disposition of this
application to the City Council and outlines the reasons and rationale for such a recommendation.
This resolution is dependent on a strong indication to revise the Comprehensive Plan for
consistency with respect to the updating of the plan. The second draft resolution recommends
against this proposal and is also offered for the Commission's consideration. The basis for the
recommended denial is the inconsistency of this proposal with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
the fact that the Planning Commission strongly recommends the continued use of this property to
provide a buffer from the more intense commercial uses to the north.
• 12 -12 -96
Page 6
Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose
• The City Council cil finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use
classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to
this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City
Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Policy
It is the policy of the City that: A. Zoning classifications must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and, B. Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning ", defined as a
zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the
Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles.
3. Procedure
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and
against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
4. Guidelines
A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications?
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the
subject property?
D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject
property was zoned?
E. In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning
districts?
G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with
respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1. Comprehensive
planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3. The best
interests of the community?
I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual
parcel?
Section 35 -208
Revised 2 -95
• Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote
flexibility in land development and redevelopment, reserve aesthetically
e p y
significant and environmentally nta11 sensitive nsitive site features conserve energy nd
ensure a high quality design.
gy
it of i
g 4 y g
Subdivision Zsion 2.
Classification
of PUD Districts; tracts; Permitted Uses, Applicable
Regulations.
a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters
"PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning
district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new
classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall,
whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning
classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not
reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications,
the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD -
MIXED."
b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as
those governing the underlying zoning district : subject to the following:
g
1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the
• Council at the time of rezoning to PUD.
2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary
to comply with the development plan of the PUD.
3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD - MIXED, the Council shall
specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various
parts of the district.
C. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or
structures on d
lan adjacent to or
J in the vicinity f the PUD district
y tact
which depend on the zoning of
the PUD district, Q
g tact, the underlying zoning
classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning
classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD -
MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the
classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is
permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive
regulation of adjacent or nearby properties.
Subdivision 3. Development Standards.
a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included
within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding
existing rights -of -way, unless the City finds that at least one of the
following conditions exists:
•
35 -355
1. These are unusual physical features of the property or of the
• surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve
a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or
community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way
from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD
will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously
approved development; or
3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land
uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses.
b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be
consistent with Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or
lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for
the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards.
C. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with
Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser
standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or
other mitigative measures.
d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the
parking requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless
• the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser
standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak
parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require
execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to
those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are
otherwise approved by the City.
Subdivision 4. General Standards.
a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on
each platted lot within a PUD.
b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be
permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and
objectives of this section.
c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership
or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be
necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site
plan.
35 -355
• e
The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards
for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land
subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances
generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve
streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are
not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements
where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the
residents or of the City.
Subdivision 5. Application and Review.
a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan.
The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council
after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the
development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and
Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and
documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall
include at a minimum the following:
1. Street and utility locations and sizes;
2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water
storage areas;
• 3. A grading plan;
4. A landscape plan;
S. A lighting plan;
6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development;
7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the
development;
8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking
areas;
9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all
buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of
development; and
10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications.
Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently
complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the
City.
25 -355
•
b.
The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development
plan. Notice of such public hearing hall be published in the g p Official
newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and
adjacent property owners as required by Section 35 -210 of this
ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan
and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan
within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance.
C. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the
City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding
the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within
the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance.
Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the
property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In
addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance,
the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the
following criteria:
I. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of
this section;
2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan;
3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be
• located; and
4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities,
circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational
areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping.
The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may
determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD
district.
d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek
plan approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition
to the
information
specifically required by Section 35 -230, the
developer shall 11 submit such information as may be deemed
y necessary or
convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed
development with the approved development plan.
The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial
compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in
essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of
dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased b y more
than 5
percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased
or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in
• the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from
its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building
has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent.
35 -355
•
e• Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute
a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City.
f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval
required by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for
both simultaneously.
g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by
Section 35 -230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building
permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans.
h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the
development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within
12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has
commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council
may initiate rezoning of the property.
i• Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City
Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in
this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any
change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section.
Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made
if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as
• may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
r
• Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 96017
Applicant: Brookdale Mitsubishi
Location: 7223, 7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan- PUD -C -2
The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process for the development of an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. Mitsubishi
dealership on a 7.035 acre site located on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, northerly of
Shingle Creek. The property under consideration includes four parcels in Brooklyn Center and a
small triangular shaped parcel of land in Brooklyn Park. Three of the parcels, totaling 3.088
acres, were most recently the site of the Red Lobster Restaurant (the triangular parcel in Brooklyn
Park; the main site for the Red Lobster Restaurant which is addressed 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard;
and an off -site parking lot dedicated for the sole use of the Red Lobster Restaurant which is
addressed as 7227 Brooklyn Boulevard). Another parcel which is a part of the proposal is a
2.537 acre site addressed as 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard, which includes a 6,081 sq. ft. building
housing the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) and contains an access road
leading from the building to Brooklyn Boulevard. The final parcel under consideration in this
proposal is a vacant 1.409 acre parcel addressed as 7223 Brooklyn Boulevard (located between
the Red Lobster off -site parking lot and Brooklyn Boulevard, southerly of the access road leading
to CEAP).
• Brookdale Mitsubishi has acquired all of the parcels listed above and plans to demolish the old
Red Lobster Restaurant building to be replaced by a new automobile showroom, office and
service center. They propose to eventually convert the CEAP building to dealership use for
automotive parts storage and car clean up functions related to their use and the adjacent Toyota
City dealership which is located in Brooklyn Park and is under a related ownership. As
mentioned, Brookdale Mitsubishi has acquired the CEAP building but has an agreement to lease
them their former building for up to one year in order to allow them to find a new site and to
relocate. Once the building is vacant, Brookdale Mitsubishi would convert it for their use as will
be shown on the proposed plans accompanying this PUD rezoning request.
The property in question is zoned C -2 (7235 Brooklyn Boulevard) and C -1 (7223, 7227 and 7231
Brooklyn Boulevard) and is bounded on the north by the common boundary line between the
cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park with the Toyota City dealership and the small
triangular shaped parcel which is bound to the Brooklyn Center site through deed restriction on
the opposite side of the boundary; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard with C-1 zoned land
containing the Re/Max Real Estate Office Building on the opposite side; on the south by R -3
zoned land containing the Creek Villa Townhomes; and on the southwest by Shingle Creek and
R -3 zoned land containing the Unity Place Co -op on the opposite side of the creek.
Automobile sales and service are special uses in the C -2 zoning district. These uses are not
10 -17 -96
Page 1
• comprehended under the C -1 zoning district. Automotive repair is not allowed to abut R- 1, R -2
or R -3 zoned property at a property line or at a street line. Because of this, the applicant is
proposing to pursue their request through the Planned Unit Development process and is seeking
rezoning based on a site and development plan to a PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit
Development/Commerce) zoning designation. Such a zoning designation could allow the
proposed use through a development agreement.
A Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation
followed by an alpha- numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying
zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit
Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case C -2) would apply to
the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the
needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and
structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the
development plans. In this case, the applicant would be seeking modification to allow automobile
service on property abutting R -3 zoned property based on special modifications they would make
to their plan. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's
Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached).
REZONIN�C
The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures
• outlined in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the City's rezoning evaluation
policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. The policy and review guidelines are
attached for the Commission's review as well.
Mr. Ted Terp, on behalf of Brookdale Mitsubishi, has submitted a letter and written statement
regarding their proposal along with comments as to how they believe their proposal addresses the
rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. The letter (attached) indicates that they have
acquired the four parcels in Brooklyn Center, which they believe would be appropriate for an
automobile sales and service operation involving a Mitsubishi dealership. They note that they
need to rezone three of the four parcels to accommodate this request. They have chosen the PUD
process in order to accommodate a need to limit the type of development permitted on the
property in order to protect the neighboring residentially zoned properties from incompatible
future redevelopment. Their letter goes on to comment how they believe their development
proposal meets the guidelines and how they believe it offers the city benefits through their
development.
To summarize their comments, the applicant believes their redevelopment is beneficial to the city
by redeveloping an abandoned restaurant site and a vacant site which has not been able to be
marketed for development. They believe the assembly of these four small parcels into a larger
parcel is beneficial to the community. Their plan would eliminate the private CEAP access road,
• 10 -17 -96
Page 2
• which currently divides the parcels and they would be able to realign the access curb cut with the
curb cut on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard which the Hennepin County transportation
division deems to be desirable. They note their plan includes ponding areas that will be required
by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, which will improve water quality and
also assist in controlling the rate of run off from the site. The believe their proposed plan will
provide an attractive, modern and well landscaped site in place of the existing odd combination of
small, inefficient and disconnected parcels. They go on to state that they believe their proposed
development offers other advantages, that being the fact that Shingle Creek offers a physical
separation between the business district and residential district to the south. The creek is a natural
physical buffer between the proposed development and the neighboring residential districts. The
creek, they note, also provides a minimum 100 ft. natural buffer between the active portions of
their site and the neighboring residential zoning to the south. They believe their proposed
redevelopment is consistent and logical with respect to other current uses from the subject site to
Regent Avenue North in Brooklyn Park, which are all similar businesses. This, they point out,
adds to the critical mass and, they believe, generates greater success for the businesses in that
area. They conclude by indicating their proposal, in their opinion, represents a beneficial and
appropriate development, combining and utilizing four disparate parcels in an attractive, efficient
and logical way.
As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposals based on the
rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The policy
states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must
not constitute `spot zoning' which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a
particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning
principals.- Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the
City's policy and against the various guidelines which have been established for rezoning review.
The following is a staff review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance as we
believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal.
A. IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT?
The applicant has noted that they believe their proposal is a benefit to the public by
redeveloping a site which is abandoned and under utilized into one which is consistent
with surrounding land uses. It is the staffs opinion that such a redevelopment may be
considered a public benefit it indeed balances the business needs of the community and can
still accommodate the residential uses that are somewhat separated, but should not be
impacted by the development.
B. IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH
SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS?
The proposal is certainly consistent with the land uses to the north in Brooklyn Park
• 10 -17 -96
Page 3
• which is another automobile dealerships. And, it is my understanding, that Toyota
City is under the same or related ownership. Their proposal would provide some
cross uses between the car dealership to the north. It should also be noted that
Shingle Creek, with its dense foliage, does create a barrier between the townhouses to
the south and southwest of this site. Some of the applicant's property is on the south
side of Shingle Creek, however, no development will be undertaken on the south side
of the creek and this area, too, will provide some buffer and relief between the active
portions of the site and the residential property to the south. We do not find conflict
with this commercial use and the commercial use on the opposite side of Brooklyn
Boulevard. The most critical point is how this site, through its development plan, can
be buffered and relate to the property on the opposite side of Shingle Creek.
C. CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE
CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY?
No other uses or development, other than that which is permitted under the
development agreement which would have to be executed would be allowed. Other
uses which might be comprehended can only be allowed through an amendment to the
Planned Unit Development process that is being undertaken. Only uses specifically
acknowledged by the City Council under a Planned Unit Development are allowed. If
a determination.can be made that the use proposed is appropriate, this guideline can be
• met.
D. HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING
CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY WAS ZONED?
The subject property was rezoned to its current C -1 /C -2 zoning designation in the late
1970's. The establishment of the C -2 zoning district was considered an extension of
the zoning and uses that were allowed to the north in Brooklyn Park. The C -1 use
was viewed as an additional buffer to the townhouses that were developed or were
being developed to the south and west. There have been no other zoning changes in
the immediate area, with the exception of the establishment of service/office zoning
designations for properties on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard, southerly of 71 st
Avenue. The basic question in this situation, is can a development plan be put
together which will be compatible with the surrounding uses and provide appropriate
buffering between the sites?
E. IN T THE CASE OF CITY INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS, IS THERE A
BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT?
This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case.
10 -17 -96
Page 4
F. WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BARE FULLY THE ORDINANCE
•
DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING
DISTRICTS?
We believe the subject property can bare fully the ordinance development restrictions
for this Planned Unit Development proposal based on findings which would need to be
made by the City and a development agreement between the City and the developer
which would address any issues and would acknowledge the site plan as part of the
development agreement. The applicant's proposal will have to be reviewed by the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and is subject to flood plain
regulations as well. It appears, as will be reviewed later, that parking, setbacks,
access, circulation and landscaping will be appropriate. One of the most critical points
is how the proposed use can be screened along the south and southwest portions of
the site.
G. IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES
PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT, WITH RESPECT TO
SIZE CONFIGURATION, TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION?
It might be argued that the site is generally unsuited for uses permitted and one might
point to the vacant parcel along Brooklyn Boulevard which has remained undeveloped
over the years. The use of the property for CEAP might be considered an under
utilization of the property and, in some respects, a more intense commercial use such
as that in Brooklyn Park might be appropriate. The applicants believe the property is
unsuited for uses permitted under the zoning district and should be intensified as they
have proposed.
H. WILL THE REZONING RESULT IN THE EXPANSION OF A ZONING
DISTRICT, WARRANTED BY: 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING;. 2. THE
LACK OF DEVELOP ABLE LAND IN THE PROPOSED ZONING
DISTRICT; OR 3. THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY?
It is believed that the creation of the PUD /C -2 zoning district in this area provides for
flexibility in dealing with redevelopment issues for this site. The proposed
development, could be considered in the best interests of the community if it is
properly developed. Another matter that needs to be considered is the fact that this
proposal is inconsistent with the current City Comprehensive Plan. The land use
revisions map contained in the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1980 and is
currently being revised in accordance with requirements in state statute designated
Y g Q �
this area for the split zoning designation that it has. That allows C -1, or service /office
uses, south of the more intense C -2 uses to the north. This provision in the
Comprehensive Plan should be revised if the proposal is to go forward. As indicated,
• 10 -17 -96
Page 5
• the Comprehensive Plan is required to be updated and that process is underway. If
this proposal is to go forward, clear direction to amend the revised Comprehensive
Plan should be undertaken so that these revisions would be consistent with a newly
adopted Comprehensive Plan by the City.
I. DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE
INTEREST OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL?
The applicants certainly believe their proposal has merits beyond only their interest and
the redevelopment of this site may be considered important. The Planning
Commission and ultimately the City Council have to make a determination that this
proposal does demonstrate merit beyond only the owners interests and that the
redevelopment is in the best interests of the community.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
The proposal calls for the demolition of the old Red Lobster Restaurant building and the building
of a new 18,847 sq. ft. building. Fifteen thousand, eight hundred eighty -one (15,881) sq. ft. of the
building will be on the main floor and would include two showroom areas at the front of the
building, one for new cars and the smaller one for used cars. General office area,. customer
waiting, parts and rest rooms would also be on the first floor. To the rear of the building is the
service area containing a service write -up /reception area and 11 service bays plus one wash bay.
Access to the service bays would be primarily from the north. We have requested that the wash
bay with an overhead service door be switched to the north side of the building to keep most of
the activity to the north side of the site. The second floor would contain 2,966 sq. ft. and would
be for parts storage and a lunch room.
Modifications to the CEAP building would allow for four overhead doors on the northerly side of
the building which would be used for parts storage, detailing and car clean -up. The site plan
shows a connection at this point to the Toyota City dealership to the north.
ACCESS/PARKING
Access to the site would be gained via two accesses off Brooklyn Boulevard. One access to the
site would be at the same location that it currently is in the City of Brooklyn Park. The existing
southerly access would be moved further to the south to align directly across from the access
serving the office building n the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard. This would allow the building
g yn g
location to shift further to the south from that where the existing Red Lobster building is now
located.
Parking for the site is based on a combination of the uses undertaken at the dealership. The zoning
• 10 -17 -96
Page 6
• ordinance requires three parking spaces for service bays and one parking space for each service
bay employee. As indicated, there are 11 service bays within the main building and four service
bays within the converted CEAP building which would mean 15 service bays plus one wash bay.
The applicant has indicated that there would be approximately ten employees on any one shift in
the service operation. This would, therefore, require a minimum of 58 parking spaces. The
service operation would take up over half of the square footage of the main floor of the new
building. Based on a retail parking formula, 44 parking spaces would be required for this use.
The second story storage area would require a need for four parking spaces and figuring half of
the 6,000 sq. ft. building once it is converted would also be used for storage, would also require
four parking spaces. This would require a need for o 110 parking spaces to accommodate the use
on the site. Even looking at this site in a conservative manner and requiring parking based on the
retail parking formula for the entire 24,928 sq. ft. of building on the site, the parking requirement
would be 137. The applicant's plan shows 350 parking spaces on the site and breaks down their
perceived need to be 38 customer parking spaces, 35 employee parking spaces, 83 service parking
spaces (a total of 156) and 194 display /inventory parking spaces. The site as proposed should
accommodate the minimum parking requirements for such a site given our zoning ordinance
requirements.
GRADING/DRAINA E/UTILITIES
This site is affected by both wetland and flood plain areas adjacent to Shingle Creek. The wetland
has been identified and is delineated at the westerly portion of the site. Their plan shows the
® location of two holding ponds. One to the west end of the site and another at the very southeast
portion of the site, northerly of Shingle Creek. Their land on the south side of Shingle Creek
would be left undisturbed.
As indicated, a storm drainage and water management plan will need to be submitted for the
review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission because this site
is a commercial site of more than five acres and also because the property is adjacent to Shingle
Creek. The site is already served by existing sewer and water and will be tied into the existing
utilities. New storm sewer will need to be installed connecting to the drainage ponds on the site.
The City Engineer will be reviewing the drainage and utility plans and may have additional
comments for the Commission's review.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan, however, no analysis of the landscape point system
has yet been provided. This 7.035 acre site will require 462 landscape points. The applicant's
plan seems to provide adequate landscaping but further analysis will need to bo conducted to
verify this. They are also proposing to retain, as much as possible, some existing landscaping on
the site.
10 -17 -96
Page 7
BU ELDING
The building elevations indicate the exterior to be a combination of rockface concrete block on
the lower portion of the building elevations and a scored concrete block for the upper elevations.
The showroom areas will have a synthetic fascia and soffit above the glass areas, which will be a
combination of one inch thick clear insulating glass and black spandrel glass. Overhead door
would be located on the south and north sides of the building leading to the service write -up area
and at the rear of the building to exit the service bays. As indicated previously, we have requested
that the wash bay and overhead door proposed for the south side of the building be relocated to
the north side. The CEAP building would remain the same exterior, which is a concrete block.
No indications are provided on the building elevations with respect to the color scheme proposed
by the applicant.
LIGHTING/TRASH
The site plan at this time does not indicate site lighting for the development nor locations for trash
dumpsters. Our main concern, as always, is that lighting comply with the provisions of Section
35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance which require that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses,
reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. This section of the
ordinance also requries that no glare shall emanate from, or be visible beyond, the boundaries of
the premises.
No trash enclosure areas are indicated on the site. Any outside trash disposal areas should be
screened from view with a solid screening device compatible with the building. Also any rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view either with parapet walls or
screening devices on the roof.
Another point which should be mentioned is the requirement for screening along the south and
southwesterly portions of the site. The City's Zoning Ordinance relating to abutment between
C -2 and R -1, R -2 or R -3 property requires a minimum of a 35 ft. buffer area which cannot be
used for any purpose other than landscaping and screening. The Shingle Creek greenstrip area
provides over 100 ft. of buffering between the proposed parking areas and the property line.
Also, the creek area is dense with vegetation. Currently on the site of the off -site parking lot is an
8 ft. high opaque fence which was installed at the time the Red Lobster off -site parking lot was
approved for the purpose of screening the parking lot from the residential area. I believe it would
be appropriate to consider, even in addition to the buffer and heavy landscaping in the Shingle
Creek area, that an 8 ft. high opaque fence or wall be installed all along the proposed parking lot
for this site.
This should rovide adequate screening to shield in he evenin
e d t
P q g g and other
activities in this automobile dealership hat may have
an adverse affect on the abutting P Y g residential
property, even when the heavy landscaping becomes more sparse during the winter months.
PROCEDURE
10 -17 -96
Page 8
• This PUD /C -2 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan.
As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. This means that following the Planning
Commission's public hearing, the rezoning proposal and the site and building plan should be
referred to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comments. In this case,
it would be referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. We have invited advisory
group members to attend the Planning Commission meeting. We will attempt to schedule a
meeting of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group within the next few weeks for the
purpose of a formal review. Persons receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public
hearing (property owners within 350 ft. of the site) and anyone else who desires to be notified,
will be informed of the date, time, etc. of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting.
It should also be noted that State Statutes only give the City 60 days in which to review and make
a decision on zoning matters. The Planning Commission has traditionally referred matters to the
neighborhood advisory group when appropriate to give input, comment and reaction to rezoning
proposals. It has been pointed out to the applicant that they can insist that this matter be acted on
by the City Council within 60 days of the date of their filing, however, this would not give the
Planning Commission an appropriate time to make a recommendation. We have, therefore,
requested and the Planning Commission should assure, that the applicant acknowledge that they
are willing to waive this 60 day time frame in lieu of the Planning Commission's review process.
This matter will be expedited and should be back before the Planning Commission within 30 to 60
days so that the matter can be before the City Council in an appropriate time.
• A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post
and notices have also been sent to neighboring property owners within 350 ft. of the site.
The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing, and then table the.
application with the consent and acknowledgment of the applicant and refer it to the Northwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. The commission may wish to
comment on the proposal and give any direction to the neighborhood advisory group that they
feel is appropriate for their review.
• 10 -17 -96
Page 9
D �] �/ N � Av IOR 7nW X3A --- - - - - --
ll�� / VERA CRUZ AVE N
• - 55D0
> > ` V UNITY AVE N
z N' 310 0 C o 0 C � '\ 5400
z z i r r°
� rn 'N '3AV 00 101 -44
r �
i r 9 EDO AVE N
'3AV HODS. `. r "
Y 110J )TT AVE N
— - — -- - i ; _ - -' 'N '3AY 1fT3
N 3 9 f �.
�. III � GENT AVE N
DO
��, JJ _ _ _
• '3AV IIVQO ' O AIL AVE N
En oo
AWW3J 'N '3A
A E . N, s z
- - � II h o � � • � RRY AVE N
A r 00
i Y '►' f
' C11
ORAR0 AVE N
j _=_ b `. p s !^ E m 4700
_ 4f� N 3
� :��• N •3AV 3TOON � ��'r.� ' '3nv 79014
��-
%•''�' ----- - -- - -- _.. _ � _ - -- NOBLE AVE N
'N :30 IfOrY11 � � � 4700
Ay / F _ z -
MAJOR AVE N
LEE
--; L 1 �.. - 4600
1 �• "�-_ _N, ITT- - LEE AVE N
> N. _ KYLE AVE N
o - 4400
J -
- ------- - - - - -- i! Jim
i -- y------------- --�' 1.
JUNE AVE N
4300
V YNYtoml s INDIANA —
_ 111DIMA AVE N
/ -- 4200
_ _ _•• � / � �� t I A_ AVE N.
IIAL IFAX AVE N
-J - - - -- - -- - -� 4100
V.
M - 7 n - _ _ > 6RIWS AVE N
1 I� 'ti tTT 1 1 t'FT T I 4nnn
tum
NOTES CORRESPONDING 10 SCHEDULE B: LE 1 DE SCRIP 11011.
'" •" .'.—.n . "'• — GENERAL NOTES:
►M[II
t3n 1ww LEGAL DESCRIP11ON: r...Nw•r. • ""` •r_..rrrrw °.rN. .1' fNOA1lYatiiUf'OOFIAPIIY
2 ALI m
1 _" `�' M w r MY PLANT ►IOOTY n,
Al �l��
O
rM `w_N wA r.w1M �y j�� �..�..r_.w� �S }}!!�� .
NN•rwY��M� ti" �V..Y l. r r
' i � .7 fir•. r.. r. w.+......••..+....► r.w. 'bCD �'�G« """ :r
.... ,..,.•.... � .w .. � r.....»._ +•_1 e.w t."'r .7�a - ra ma r. •`.:J
+. �••7L Y•i IC'lli1 iiW JLGL'� Mrr ►M � t J•�`S ` rr r. �r r mrr ..w.
Y. �..r..r� IECAI DESCRIp11p �q
R�CLp,' ` sLJK'a1r k 3 IT' �G :'14 ..._..'wxL'� ��$. • z•_ t'
��yyjY ` Nw..r.+.w � 4' r Lf r ;7 � LTL.r �T•A \_.+ /ycj
A. I 1 1I �; M�y��H•.r M .+.—U _ rY M � •y. . y�. .. �' � ►►�yy .. �, . � /N y � y • � �w
rN
�� W ,
STA1EMEf11S 0i' EfICROAGIMENiS:
1 lit
lot I
\�� Of l 2. _ -
uwYO
_t." HarutY MAP >_ �_ \ f 10_T� • _ \
'��••� � �•.- �� = +E= ,., y JIOS.�d
na
._ + —' �f....""" Q�� � r b n •'� "�' �� R"ai.+tfi• -= �•- •--`�_ �Y"'nti %� 'L � .._. �'f � � �
JAIL ttf L
..... S 89'07'39 W 64301 .....
1
1
• Plaposed ffiulilfi
� Deilertl>ill
►•aAlp Crla, Atl
� AQUNT
te
/• 111GINlt111NG 4 Olfl Gr
� rfrnW L • • r�l 'y
i
_ j
1 tll A A ` �`"•w. �� d•• �4
11 - 'a" -��� r, st �� r• nr 1.1 ra 1�t `� tip.. wrti7• ®•
. rur.r... �,�.4pta ICar.allTltti�,yo`'gA �`,M ,n n�Nr'. a�^ h,..•�y�:�•,•,``,............,,
Alr ►c
as 14 S.f a-t h 4 4�q r! ►') ♦v n r. )+ w•1 1t1}
l � a anlnl , ./nclr
L EGE)p
o.•nY roses.. raw ,v.ww
o.,rw rrv.on ro w rwo..o
BAKER ASSOCIAIIS, IHr_
ARCIIIHCIS
N n.,rw oorora.s rw. ro w wr.o.w
M c+.rwwwrr�. rw, row w.otio - !�\ 511it. 14m 11i
�y�
•� 111MM�1, WI 1•, /n)
111 fl)119 lIAI
IiOtFO Lr iq 111 � /3.11
I).nln4lkxt tiro
D4r
Proposed MlIsublahl
Dealership
.\ &oo&hn CwAw. LIN
TOY40 CRY
o
arse data
b." to Isan bd
IN • 1
■■Y.w lwlh Nww L.._.._.._..._.. _.._..�..�.._.._.. _. 1 .. _.._...._.._.._.. _.. _.. _. �. i
■�Me1w 1■�ti N Mw '
Nw.. BAKER ASSOCIATES, INC.
rr
ARCHITECTS
w.. w
s q+�.nr Yyaon..r tAnM.e..Y < 1� 1~I n, �,.."■'
��r.. •._...r mow.,
arse plan
■ 1 r ■ u '� .r......r,..
Plopo"d Silo Plan
W ..
e— 7 At
.•A •••L
urw AI+r+n
vales+
rusHSllt
101 H1 11t Iq
, nn '.7we.w•y /.`! /fS ,��,�s5'S�s`s
011 rtwS it �� f ra. rr.w wr.r w.. .- �•�.�u
IM IM +rI 11S •ar rr.w weer .ur.n _.._ �. -..__.
w.r rbw w .
SDI111DMV p.uw....•.,r - —
.)NI 'S1LVDgSSV VIXY•
(30 nil
La
I.. e1 M.M •M.l.r w1 —__p �. -.._.—
aJ w i W y •�
`V•11 \�rN `4 ~`r V �r V L4 14 fi e, 4 y \y\y ir+ar
C� b `
t tttt •xa011i�1�H Jl{AI. >__ ;rN1/1 r `��''�.
,
/ .sto.il a,L, kll tr��
r.71t)O v •jN /r1 /r117r11
�ytl�r)n
Nf!4'+)ISY Pn0d0N
11• it
a G
7j g
O• t
Is
Plipi
0
• /,, - _:� ��t ; ! � � Pl; fur:►'
1 r.. • I
® �• . �; i I . � !!l j l,F fair ;; '
\ a ,, .tom „' •'!••'
•;•:is , l� , I
• . L :;::,.; ��`.a � ; ,
�� �+'/ \;.;; /. ��'•�•-Yc tea\`"
l0
or
e .
t
/"ism � l� •1:,. ; : 4
i
t
• Proposed Nibubishl
�.: �.�,.. t• � DeoleraNp
IQ04 C41
OD
• • a • • bdye Ltdr, W
N[M1•/r/a v`'�w•.• • I Annnr taenrfn`ttsr.K
.� • a.rws,. r.•
� ••� '� \__ �� Ism •• QQ' :.® •' �,_ •� .•.r..:; "- .
1
Ol.tl!{Al.ef:.Cttl,lfJ� yw
N LAKMG.ti fOA•.•capA 1ie1 M IyWM�11YI. Atl
NMaY f..•{r.� N.NLY 01ww�0 N OOV.NC.W
••:Arles.
POeA•LN# Mw.l AA~ 4/ AY .w/MO /.' M /
powll•ICA01 at.alry.
• All � A MOwrrwlCl f♦wN1 M MA's/• •.IaAll■ � ��
•sM■I JI N rLgl Ar0 N Nl�rl OMI •N N •awll t.h, ' t
N wAAw eoN aM M M •Mn1 aMI.AwA
MY 1Y OIAI oa�A+• MnwrA NwM •Iww•� ll■AI
L ♦11Y O �L Ib•OiIY OYL
[L.MM ass INL ea.w w •.w swan LMIr ar•w_ Al
[ter Nor. w we.
ra N. rva wa srrLr.nv M LA~w ■.ew s M nAWM :I EM BAKER ASSOCIATES. 11
'.rsrc.w wa.s.w ~w ArraMr .~at •rAaw
rNOw.ow a AwrNr«
L+w[+.•. awwLprw rr e•Iw w nA ~.w wa w.a tm on raoti►xx fUtt eata+ M a woot P ttVAleae
N.N.anL.o eoo vwa bAaL LA�a■l� ii n.+.. •..•p...... A..vwr. M..•. t rt Pt OWN A vw. t ARCHITECTS
wrn M M eOw ~ w•w na e.■are ~ Iwr■li■r .. tt ®11 i Ik.■iA lb
rw.►I•la MaAn l�o•eA.e rvAl t•A.arw►Mwre +l•■A' _ K ••wn. rvrAr• •...... ►Mr,l• rIN•II ►t.wi r■vwrrt . toll S.I. 110
�� ■ ~h �oo �� ~.w ++vw...w.w was+■ tg ; 4. N.M p•.•■�N M.ti eorttL �ritNe wyucw N• cr. n Mnn.piL• W ll�n/.
A.�r..ls ww.•7 'N•�•IM ■• ♦testa •f t a l
rt t rIN yra. frr• co M[tant west• LL
tv ml
•AAA•.wor•►I ►+r�•rAlrr N MS-.ore •aa ■■sww IN flww •rel 'IrwN.t trwla trr••■6 . n ca (a I11.SM 56A/
waN..ww n+w..Lww.IV� vl M Y/we..w 1L.r.. 'h•It[ [r 'N a..•I ✓• Nww�•avw M Lwl
•s •rc Lt�..na.. •r.a. M 'Ne awc ••w �. .
wAV•o .■o evr■+ a A�[r � ar+lr.a. LJaI.OVA
OPAl14' ~II •M•tL IL••e•w Ia✓elN• O Alle• NM Pw•AOI
MwAI •W N na ■ow■A.� Armor nAl+� ow.wle W ■r
Aw•WwY M■O
l� 4•IIa.�MAI• ~ swwoN•w Nw.wlwwal wrM
w■iMw 11 ..ww
Ptoposed Londtcope Pl,
Q7i —
W - -' m 1 1
Toyolo Cily
r t ..i . Proposed Wlsubbhi
- _- — Deolenhlp
E NSW BUI� DING
sal floole rL. • "°�aea,amcnaarn. .
lap)
I �
[�� {�� * a l I
BAKER ASSOCIATES, u
AROJI TEC TS
OLEO '.!••'� , � ,�'; J'� .I ...�.�..� .} ��
�. Mu
® � �MfR10 OfTAI ,_= N rTt
1
Proposed Londscope N -
° IE)
.INC —- -wM.r
-- 1 — - -- - - — J'L :•
,w[ —_ ...'r � •. u • J'L!, it
— _ —_wr
,rr '
Q C Q "
,.t_ - - - - - -- - -��.
— _
I � Proposed Mitsubishi 'r _mot, Doolenhlp
/fir - -- • W........«. +....,.,..
hJ �� OA BAKER ASSOCIATES, INC
ARCHITECTS
– _7f.
E•toibr Ebr /tIons I Secoo
Q C S A
I I I i
i I 1 I
I t
r •, 1 �i r
1
I
I.It
wl�,.. t ---- - - - - -- -- - --
1
'Z[
d
P /opoaal MbsubhM
Osrlonhlp
�/oo►ynC«M «. Lw
BAKER ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCII1TECTS
® 1111 \VV W
►.Y U!
it
!� 11lp.A
2nd flowPlen
wl..•..w r.MYyl.
w. .. :._:.. AT
----- ----- - /��•C -------- -- - - -- t.
1
•r...l 1
1
1
1
/
1
WM IrN 1
1
-- 1
_ 1 I••�e
1
Iw I Nr-rI wrMr ° 1 I
1
1
1
1 I
err ryl 1 I.
Ir y or �
�
1
-- -- -- -- - - - - - - --------- - - - - -�
1 i
Z\l
...e - - - - -- - - - --
Proposed Mlbubl/hl
' Dealership
rr.N • Broo" Cove. ►N
er.r 1
/
/
buudkw data '
1 BAKER ASSOCIAMS, INC
WeJlns loeyrM: 1/.Ni puere AM i ARCHITECTS
wwrW lea Mwe ree: laN erl/la W er w
ww b." Mew ene: 1 /.NY etNere /lei ..... � r.l
bub" oom*w" elwellkdoo - UW Mleplol a
1111•e/eeW/IeLY 1 ���� +�.�
�•N••f +•�i onv.
1 MlewroalN eM ol/ow • t Nery ... r..r r.r+w..
114 eema O.P.6" A - 1 Mort •+ - -- _... .
FhI f low Plan
A2
.... ..... ..._ ...�...�......,........... :s_:. ere. �. �.. 1aµ�2hY�f i4: y.. v:. L'. s.... r.{ u... a+ w. a: �'. u: �c✓ c++.':�.a. -ww�. a,u_au. ..:..:.. _r�... ... ... .. _ ....
rb
� Proposed Mitsubishi
Dealership
Brooklyn Center. MN
t•. \` • .si � \
Toyota City
0.
:\ .\ .. ..\ \ \.. _.. _.. _.. .Y\1 .....�.. I / �� \,�,•�•: \.• .. �-- - ._�_ .fit �•. — — 0 •0,\ \ \\�
1A 1 \
m \
eee ewe:
321,172 rave W
bus&% 10041
- do% klnmeN eON eare%ee% I. ' - .. ' ✓�.
wr 2%.961 eawe
am—puYae 36"-
2. W—
,.,w„�.0 e � .%e9o. \ Via• \ 101" BAKER ASSOCIATES. INC
ew.%M.•re•nv.*«v Ls)eea9 ARCHITECTS
%041 2N epww A Z�• ` .... I
eae am penhe enece Ye e-e M/Oe uWM re%ee Wr.
%I 911 es eql
W YpnlFp 9619 Mpeben 49•r t:lty ne�Y.�wib :.. re, 911 en fees
site plan N
Proposed Sde Plan
Al
i�
ij. wi.... u+ n...+. w. wrr+ acw•saww+i�t:+K:RSGiwJ:�..:�s _ _ __ __ +imat�+•t'+Liic�uw �- _ _ --- • � .w.v..�.....�.........a... - ..« �..........-. �.. a.......... �..... �,.......... �...-... ti. ..�. «.�_.....�...._ ............ ........ _.•.......__- ... ..... .. ._
Cb
f � _
Proposed Mitsubishi
Dealership
' ®r /
r
r t !10
10'MIIIOU/a 1 f1Nk berm W "W �
va"I lw-( ep�
1
1
234*4 -
Plop"
MAKER ASSOCIATES. IW
ARCHITECTS
1M�W V
diagrammatic site section _•r ®. r //.r
fob
Tt 1N
•r+r•aT �w..wr.
•wrrww�/Mw�r•w�.•
rr..r
Y. Iti w
OMpgmnWC aaatt 8wbon
f• II
O�Yr rw.•.
G -
��• SCIt®[At - fiMl,l 11w:ion 1r. t _ 1!/6�..
O OA. DO ANC4 N4'K c rTION LY= Gild n0w FarLAWA
K frarwf M
n.raN.wa •.•rw•Ny Mr.raa' w {•Wl't Kll(f/ fI([w 4p T• tfa. t1
Pf f•••. rwrf wsHPw r4[ r wt. N
w 1 ar p. +M wJ1 wV {[ 1�• C/L H ��,,y;��
(Q
•a 1/ ..w..,.„.r ..1.... ✓ . PN,r MLCtmrt( xrvta Krr P► �iNYVtil li
C4 IC (,rNV„M .ycJf W. •rte l',wKYY [atpr(NI[( H Arl.
.[ [ G•N,P•, ff.f•yau Mrf iMarl[7f CDCf {M wV4Ar 1.' Nl. 11 �
f K f.w .f1.f.Vy CAPE 1K t wt. H fcau M[ aof R4G,--{�I I
1� 71 fpr,,, faNnl[, tYr' KM NK[it AMU H Cpl.
yr 1 i, I,a.., rw.. 'INMM IWrIp YKIIK 1[H H 1p1. f G.•A HA f &-bya CwAmf. W
K 4,•aaw 'M.•rCwaYV A�acP .rw. H Cpl. '
]14 •rp r,pl.rw ' ►NJI /Wulf• /OMI[ KIUPf ,1f NlY
• ilffiIMYe[C SID•r(n
`. rr _._ ._ �: •cn. 1 M TasrflN {tY1M1[
1g0ta CAT ,T`
Ile
`� / ' � -- mod° "� "•'.� � ,„, I
M U,OIGfII: CGN114GrP1 NWL Y wfla•PI.N, IOw 41 -'
� awro rrr Drn.rwo s. (or•Ir+crloa �
GA11w.G1A14J11 .� fLL NAM OMrI,AlD .1 I .fwf _
GAYrIfICrIW nclmn.
. Mlr Y . DfYaOwe"7 Yr,Of M rfrYNw P ,CMI,
NrPYP fM M IPM MD M r[fY/1 PKVI M M A,WI lwr,
M'WAnI �WIOM M RNI fwfl D0.1M I
Ml 1-N D,r•wr Nr.LM NWWi'R IY1pr wWO wool �.
,YC.Pr A r.L /wDl•ONp rr @► � i
•, r..t IIOM. M YrO�N.Y P M NiKr l6vrf Ia14o�414 ^EQUM IRAN POM MR Q
7 W[
I..
. •.i7 k • 10 • wa
Ml t4rwK frJ1.l Ga'rR� YfIN M LAR41 IpIr1Da A M 110. N F4- 4 r1Nl ITC,?ty{ fY/rl
YfOCltrgPrON„IA,YIfN ,Ia0C 4Ylf,oM Y 6.M '.
I.ero.Gnl.wew.eaArfowrw . olu4D.wn....wr r oo r: },
mil BAKER ASSOCIATES. It
. o.DO�` Nw ` �`�'""` w i ARCHITECTS
Al ro fo,r ro aY,.w rua Draw w rP,AYO,1Y' I
511 1iro11A Ilpi
IRYLt1O IbP W WGar'[ .CAC LDw Yiw DMrNt w 4 ^°ld' M e N�
l� m orwow D""„m w...0 wulowplo IIRDIe, 11. N ii [N.i h [ s S4* 110
T W 55402
wv ro •NrP ra I..en IPffKi, •ro Irftrw: as DIDA4 •r -.w.l Nr �% T41; 612 U01
Ir1�rw.ww+n..wrw ar,wlYw�
1 1-0, a..s :r .. fm 6124MMAE
1 l7Mf,f,14r r Y,..,., r� w.
,t.w1a MD oufw O DeY M a1N WLL. [MD,GM11 r wy R ,
GWaUGrq 1•JI1 fll P ti! {, Iall Dw4riH Y•Iwll Ia .
P rYI,{.,a. IMIW,
wLtly,LO M AIA M4Am ♦ISY Yg1O w MPI. • N r.FO � VN „4
aD�I.IN I,il{L. ffl.Orq YItN r�r M`f rNN A N Iln
�� �w�owf ro caaown wr.u..uw wp ,ul N ,•,. .�.
Proposed Landscape Plr
l— t
.ww.rr.:.. ..._..�..��: v�.u.sa.. <w,4 ..u. .w4.w+�iN..i' 'IC�..C.iv�Na+9. �Ci�a J<:..Yi..:J. .rvi_.�rt�vn:es.Y��+Le•au. alive. uawYVt ...M.wu.��.....r..- .+a,�...Y ww_w� �.......... _.....r..wuaun.. _ ___— � _
Toyota City
` c- IlwNimY
- -- -- 1 - — — Proposed ►litstkishi
Dealership
IN-16A cWty. w
EXIST. BUILDING - NEW BUILDING
..� FLOOR FLOOR EL \•
I I ,
�� \\ 1
BAKER ASSOCIATES, It
ARCHITECTS
514 limes Md
••, SAS 420
4124M.560
!� TRH MAMM DETAL
t✓✓ Yai w ic..i ,
Proposed Landicopo Pin
•
Brookdale Mitsubishi
5353 Wayzata Blvd. 9505
Minneapolis, MN 55416
September 19, 1996
Mr. Ronald A. Warren
Planning and Zoning Specialist
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199
RE: Brooklyn Center Mitsubishi - PUD Submittal
Dear Mr. Warren:
With this letter we transmit our design package submittal for Planned Unit
Development approval to construct an approximately 18,000 square foot
automobile dealership on the subject property. We have acquired all four of
the parcels shown on the attached survey and have an agreement with CEAP to
lease them their former building for a short period of time in order to
facilitate their relocation, after which time the building will be converted
to accommodate automotive parts storage and car clean -up functions related to
the neighboring Toyota City dealership which is under related ownership.
We have chosen the PUD process in lieu of rezoning three of the four parcels
to C -2 from C -1 to accommodate the City's need to limit the type of development
permitted on the property in order to protect the neighboring R zoning district
from incompatible future redevelopment,
Our proposed development offers the City of Brooklyn Center m ny benefits
including the following:
The proposed redevelopment of a long abandoned restaurant building and
an adjacent parcel which has previously been unsuccessful y offered for
development.
Assembly and combination of four small relatively undeve opable parcels
into one reasonable sized parcel.
Elimination of the CEAP property access road spur which c rrently divides
the other three parcels.
• Letter to R. Warren
September 19, 1996
Page 2
Re- aligning the current CEAP access curb cut with the opposite curb cut
across Brooklyn Boulevard as per the request of Hennepin County
Transportation Division.
Improved water quality by providing necessary water purif cation ponding
as required by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission.
An attractive, modern, well landscaped building in place f an odd
combination of small, inefficient, disconnected parcels.
In addition to the aforementioned benefits, the proposed development site
offers the following advantage:
Shingle Creek is an obvious physical delineation between business districts
and residential districts. The creek offers a natural physical buffer be-
tween the proposed development and the neighboring R zoning district. The
creek also provides a minimum 100' natural green buffer, thus greatly re-
ducing the impact of the proposed development on the neighboring zoning
district..
• The proposed development is consistent and logical as the current use from
the subject parcel north to Regent Avenue are all similar businesses, thus
adding to critical mass and generating greater succes for all the
businesses.
In conclusion, our proposal represents a beneficial and approp iate development,
combining and utilizing four disparate parcels in an attracti e, efficient and
logical way. We look forward to the cooperation of the City of Brooklyn
Center and moving ahead with our project.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted Terp
•
The Council will consider the recommendation at its October 28, 1996 meeting The applicant must
• be present. Major changes to the applications as reviewed by the Commissio ers will require that
the applications be returned to the Commission for re- consideration.
APPLICATION NO. 96017 (BROOKDA.LE MITSUBISHI)
Chair Willson introduced Application No. 96017, a request for rezoning and s to and building plan
approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, from Brookd, le Mitsubishi, 7223,
7227, 7231, and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Secretary presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location and site
and building plans for the proposed 18,000 sq. ft. automobile dealership on a T035 acre site on the
west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, northerly of Shingle Creek. (See Planning Commission
Information Sheet For Application No. 96017 dated 10 -17 -96 attached.)
Mr. Warren described the four parcels of the property located in Brooklyn Center and a small
triangular shaped parcel of land located in Brooklyn Park. The applicant has acquired all of the
parcels described and plans to demolish the vacated restaurant building to construct a automobile
showroom, office, and service center. In additional an existing building currently occupied by CEAP
will be converted to store automotive parts and for vehicle detailing and clean p. CEAP will lease
that building for up to one year until its relocation is accomplished.
Mr. Warren explained the existing zoning of the various parcels and of adjacent properties. He
• stated that automobile sales and service are special uses in the C -2 zon ng district, are not
comprehended under the C -1 zoning district, and automobile repair is not allowed to abut R -1, R -2,
or R -3 zoned property at a street or property line. Because of these current conditions, the applicant
proposes to pursue its request through the PUD process and seek rezoning based on a site and
development plan to a Planned Unit Development/Commerce zoning designation that would allow
the proposed use through a development agreement.
Mr. Warren described the PUD process, the rules and regulations of the Zonin Ordinance, and the
policy and review guidelines for rezoning. He presented the staff review of the guidelines as they
related to the applicant's proposal. A letter dated September 19, 1996, from Mr. Theodore Terp,
Brookdale Mitsubishi, describes the benefits of the development to the City anticipated by the
applicant. According to Mr. Terp, benefits include redevelopment of the abandoned restaurant site
and a vacant site, elimination of an access road, realignment of the access curb cut to be directly
opposite an existing access on Brooklyn Boulevard, ponding areas to improve water quality and run-
off from the site. In addition, the applicant believes the redevelopment to be consistent and logical
with respect to other current uses in the surrounding area.
The Secretary reviewed the staff analysis of the site and building plan, access d parking, grading,
drainage, utilities, landscaping and screening plan, building exterior materi s and design, and
lighting and trash requirements. The staff recommends modifications to e building plan and
additional information is requested with respect to landscaping, site lighting trash containment,
• provisions for screening, and storm sewer installation. A storm drainage an water management
10 -17 -96 4
plan must be submitted to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission for review and
comment.
Procedures for rezoning were detailed by the Secretary. He recomme ded following the
Commission's public hearing, that the rezoning proposal and site and building Ian be referred to the
Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. It was not d that State Statutes
allow only 60 days for City review and determination on zoning matters. le the applicant can
demand the matter be acted on by the Council within 60 days of the date of its filing, the time
limitation does not give the Commission adequate time to make its recommendation. Mr. Warren
stated the applicant has been requested to waive the 60 day time frame in lieu of the Commission's
review process. It is recommended that the Commission confirm the applicant's acknowledgment
of this waiver and assure that the application will be expedited.
Mr. Warren pointed out that the 4 parcels of land must also be platted into one single parcel and the
recommendations outlined in the staff report including a number of details not yet received from the
applicant must be incorporated into the proposal. The Secretary recommended that following the
Commission's consideration of the proposal and the public hearing, the application be tabled with
the consent and acknowledgment of the applicant, and the application be referred to the Northwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group for its review and comment.
Chair Willson called for comments from the Commissioners. Chair Willson no Led that considerable
information is still required for this application and emphasized that the Co 'ssion be allowed
• adequate time to consider this application. Mr. Warren explained the protect.on provided in City
ordinances and reviewed the time frame required to process this application. Commissioner Walker
inquired about the staff recommendation regarding installation of a screening fence on the property .
Mr. Warren recommended that an 8 foot high opaque fence or wall be installed along the parking
lot on this site to screen various adverse effects on the abutting residential property.
PUBLIC G LA NO. 96017
There was a motion by Commissioner Booth, seconded by Commissioner N wman, to open the
public hearing on Application No. 96017, at 8:45 p.m. The motion passed un ously.
Mr. John Baker, Baker Associates, Inc., Minneapolis, architect for the project, emphasized their
concern for the natural buffer zone between the commercial and residential end existing uses on
Brooklyn Boulevard, and indicated the design package and proposal are strai t-forward.
Chair Willson inquired whether the applicant will waive the 60 day review and decision period. Mr.
Ted Terp, Brookdale Mitsubishi, Minneapolis, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to waive the 60 day
review and decision period allowed under State Statutes. The Commissioners knowledged waiver
of the 60 day requirement by Brookdale Mitsubishi under Application No. 96017, and assured
expeditious handling of the application. .
Commissioner Walker inquired what the hours of operation will be for the busin -ss. Mr. Terp stated
the service hours will be 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Service hours will be expanded in the future based on
10 -17 -96 5
customer demand, however City criteria will be followed. The sales showroom for new and used
vehicles will be open 9 to 9 Monday- Thursday and 9 -6 on Friday.
Chair Willson noted that landscaping, parking plans, lighting and trash enclos a are not defined and
that information must be provided to the Commission. Messrs. Baker and Terp indicated their intent
to comply with the requests for additional information on the Application.
The Commissioners inquired about various aspects of the proposal. Mes rs. Baker and Terp
responded to their questions, described the components of the automobile deal rship, and reiterated
that more information will be provided with respect to the Commissioners' concerns.
Mr. R. Duffy, 7215 Perry Court East, expressed concern about the effect of this proposal on the
property values of Creek Villa homeowners, the noise pollution created by public address paging
systems especially during the evening hours, extensive lighting and odorous Rime pollution from
the property, increased traffic problems particularly with hazardous exit and entry to Creek Villa,
and unsightly operations of an automobile dealership. He noted the information presented is sketchy
with respect to concerns of the residents. Mr. Duffy explained that the Creek Villa neighborhood
owns and maintains its private streets and expressed concern regarding use o its streets for "test"
driving of vehicles. He stated the homeowners association has previously contacted the existing
Toyota dealership, with little success, to alleviate the current problems with tesi drivers (customers,
employees, and salesmen) using Creek Villa streets.
• Ms. S. Bergfalk, 7209 Perry Court West, outlined opposition to the proposed rezoning and
development of Brookdale Mitsubishi. She pointed out that the plan is inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and sacrifices residential quality of life for economic be refit. She expressed
concern regarding overall environmental impact of the proposal including the pollution of air, water,
soil, lighting, noise, and toxic materials created by an automobile dealershi and noted that the
proposal does not address these concerns. Ms. Bergfalk recommended that the Planning
Commission carefully consider the mental health and physical well being of the Creek Villa
community, which is already enduring countless hazards from the existing car dealerships, be
protected through limited hours of operation, increased buffer zones, prevention of excessive
lighting, and elimination of the automobile repair aspect of the proposal.
Mr. P. Goldstein, 7212 Perry Court East, described the location and style of his home as it relates
to the proposed development which will be directly affected by the development of this proposal.
While foliage on the trees during the summer provide some relief from the pollution, an 8 ft. fence
would not be adequate for screening in his opinion. He reiterated and supported the concerns
previously expressed regarding noise and light pollution from the proposed development and invited
the Commissioners and the applicant to visit his home to view the sight lines.
Mr. R. Greenwood, 4908 Wingard Place, reiterated and supported the concerns expressed regarding
noise pollution caused by loud speaker systems. He inquired about the need to rezone the small
portion of the property that lies on the Creek Villa/Shingle Creek (south) side of the property which
•
10 -17 -96 6
the developer does not intend to use. (Chair Willson responded that the City generally rejects "spot
• zoning" to the benefit of any individual or business.)
Ms. J. Cole, 7220 Perry Court East, explained that the 3 -level design of her home in Creek Villas
faces the adjacent property. While trees in full foliage during the summer months would deflect the
development, she pointed out that for 8 months of the year, the trees are bare and noise and lighting
from the existing Toyota dealership already create noise and lighting pollution. Ms. Cole requested
that the residents and quality of life of Creek Villa, who are primarily retired persons, and the Creek,
wildlife, and natural beauty of the area be protected and preserved through intense examination of
the proposal.
Mr. K. Wutschke, 7226 Perry Court East, described the proximity of his home to the proposed
development. He reiterated and supported the concerns expressed regarding noise /public address
system and light pollution. He described apprehension regarding the water run -off from the
blacktopped dealership given the porous soil conditions in the area and its effect on Shingle Creek.
at was noted that the Watershed Management Commission must review the plans for this project.)
Mr. Wutschke questioned the value of an 8 foot fence in deterring noise and light pollution from the
development.
Mr. W. Sampson, 7208 Perry Court West, reiterated and supported the concerns expressed regarding
visual and auditory pollution. Noting that the deciduous trees in the area loose leaves early in the
year, Mr. Sampson suggested that large non - deciduous trees such as evergreens be planted in the
® affected areas.
Ms. R. Andrescik, 7212 Perry Court East, expressed strong concern regarding the initial
establishment of operating hours of the dealership as stated by the applicant and indicated that
further discussion on this subject is imperative to the residents of the Creek Villa neighborhood.
The Commissioners, Mr. Warren, and the applicant's representatives, Messrs. Baker, and Terp
acknowledged the concerns expressed by the public. The applicants stated they are willing to work
with the neighborhood to address the problems cited and to reach mutual solutions. Mr. Terp
suggested that the small parcel of the property lying south of Shingle Creek could be donated to the
Creek Villa homeowners.
ACTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION NO 96017 AND TO CONTINUE
PUBLIC HEARING (BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI)
At 9:30 p.m., there was a motion by Commissioner Booth, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to
table action on Application No. 96017, to refer the Application to the Northwest Neighborhood
Advisory Group for review and comment, and to continue the public hearing.
Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Booth, Newman, Reem, and Walker. The motion
passed unanimously.
•
10 -17 -96 7
A meeting of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group will be scheduled as soon as possible
• to expedite consideration and action on Application No. 96017. The applicant, the affected
residents, and Commissioners will be notified of the meeting date. Arlene Bergfalk agreed to act
as Recording Secretary for the neighborhood meeting.
Chair Willson recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
APPLICATION NO 96019 (L.ANDFORM ENGINEERING COMPANY
Chair Willson introduced Application No. 96019, a request submitted by Landform Engineering
Company for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into 3 lots the 13.09 acre parcel of land located
on the north side of Freeway Boulevard, westerly of the Schmitt Music site.
Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the site and location
of the property to be subdivided. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No.
96019 dated 10 -17 -96 attached.) The purpose of the subdivision is to create 3 legal lots based on
the 3 separate uses of the site. Adequate parking for each of the separate uses and proportionate
division of the wetland and flood plain area between the 3 properties is provided. Mr. Warren
distributed a revised Parking Summary provided by the Applicant reflecting the parking scheme
which meets zoning district standards and revised property lines. The subdivision will create Lot
1, 3.96 acres, site of the T.G.I. Friday's Restaurant; Lot 2, 5.30 acres, site of the 85 unit Country Inn
and Suites; and Lot 3, 3.82 acres, site of a 250 seat (yet undetermined) restaurant. These
developments were previously approved under Planning Commission Application No. 96012.
•
Appropriate cross access and parking e
p kuig agr ements are required for inclusion in the final plat. Review
and approval of the site has been received from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission. The City Engineer may offer additional comments on the application.
Mr. Warren indicated the preliminary plat is in order and recommended approval subject to 3
conditions outlined in the staff report.
Chair Willson called for comments from the Commissioners. Chair Willson inquired whether the
sewer line on the property has been re- located. Mr. Warren explained that relocation to the street
line has been completed.
PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO WILE LANDFORM ENGINEERING COMPANY)
There was a motion by Commissioner Booth, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to open the public
hearing on Application No. 96019, at 9:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Darren Lazan, representing Landform Engineering Company, Wayzata MN, referred to the
revised parking summary submitted with revised lot lines to create the lots described by Mr. Warren
in his presentation, and indicated there were tight constraints on the property based on the real estate
agreements. Cross access and parking agreements will be prepared for the final plat documentation.
Mr. Lazan stated the subdivision is for legal separation of the properties based on their uses; however
10- 17 -96 8
•
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Representing the City of Brooklyn Center, Planning Commissioner Mark Holmes, liaison to the
Northwest Group, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Other
City representatives in attendance included: Planning Commission Chair Tim Willson, Commissioner
Dianne Reem, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Recording Secretary Arlene
Bergfalk. Messrs. Ted Terp, John Baker, and Tim O'Dougherty representing Brookdale Mitsubishi,
were in attendance. Approximately 35 Brooklyn Center residents also attended. No appointed
members of the Northwest Advisory Group attended.
Commissioner Holmes stated the purpose of the meeting is to informally review Planning Commission
Application No. 96017, submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi. The Planning Commission, through the
• Neighborhood meeting, gathers information to assist in making its recommendation to the City
Council on this application, but the Council ultimately makes the final decision on the Application.
This Application was considered by the Planning Commission at a meeting/public hearing on October
17, 1996. At that meeting, the Commission tabled consideration and action on the Application,
continued the public hearing and referred the matter to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group
for its review and comment. The Commission will re -open the public hearing, consider and take
action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding this Application at its December 12, 1996
meeting.
Mr. Warren used overhead transparencies to show the location and site and building plans for the
proposed 18,000 sq. ft. automobile dealership on a 7.035 acre site on the west side of Brooklyn
Boulevard, northerly of Shingle Creek. The property contains the former Red Lobster Restaurant
and its off -site parking lot, the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) site and its access
road, and a vacant parcel of land located between the parking lot and Brooklyn Boulevard, south of
the CEAP access road. A small portion of the property lies in Brooklyn Park and another small part
lies on the south side of Shingle Creek.
Mr. Warren explained that the current zoning (C -2 Commerce and C -1 Service/Office) of the
properties does not allow automobile sales and service. Therefore, Brookdale Mitsubishi's application
for a Planned Unit Development requests rezoning to accommodate the automobile sales and service
business to be provided by Brookdale Mitsubishi. Mr. Warren made an extensive presentation on the
• details of the Application including the rezoning procedures, access and parking, grading, drainage
and utilities, landscaping, building design, lighting and trash plans. He referenced an information
11 -07 -96 1
• sheet prepared by the City staff, the Planning Commission meeting minutes, and Brookdale
Mitsubishi's letter outlining how its proposal meets the City's rezoning policy and guidelines.
Commissioner Holmes requested comments from the Applicant's representatives.
Mr. Terp stated uestions raised at the Planning Commissions October 17 public hearing and
q g
P g
additional uestions from ' representatives.
om ersons at this meeting will be addressed b the Applicant's s re
q P g Y PP P
Commissioner Holmes requested testimony from the public.
Mr. I Moeller, 5001 Wingard Place, Creek Villa neighborhood, said the existing Toyota auto
dealership is a lousy neighbor, and he was offended that the same owners propose to add more of the
same. Mr. Moeller expressed concern regarding the "test" cars using the privately owned and
maintained streets in the neighborhood.
Mr. R. Turner, 5003 Wingard Place, expressed concern regarding additional traffic on Brooklyn
Boulevard and the Creek Villa streets whose residents pay for upkeep of their streets whereas the car
dealer, regardless of whose jurisdiction it is under, does not pay for anything.
Mr. W. Potasnak, 4910 Wingard Place, inquired why additional car dealers are needed in Brooklyn
Center adding more congestion on the streets.
• Mr. P. Holbo, 7106 Perry Place North, stated that he spoke with the manager of the Toyota
dealership regarding the use of residential streets for "test" driving, and Brooklyn Park acted to
discourage auto dealers from using residential streets for test driving. Holbo suggested Brooklyn
Center do the same. Holbo expressed concern regarding increased water and petroleum pollution
run -off from the proposed development, questioned why all Creek Villa residents were not informed
of the Planning Commission's previous public hearing, reviewed the neighborhood's poor experience
with the City's construction of a retention pond adjacent to the complex, and stated that in his opinion
an 8 ft. wooden fence would be inadequate for screening noise, odor, light and petroleum -based
pollution from the Creek Villa neighborhood and Shingle Creek.
Mr. R. Duffy, 7215 Perry Court East, expressed concern that the matter of excessive lighting from
the property has not been addressed. Duffy also expressed concern regarding the gas, oil, etc. that
will go into the holding ponds and eventually seep into Shingle Creek. Duffy stated his home and
neighborhood are an investment to be enhanced rather than diminished.
Ms. E. Potter, 4308 Wingard Place, spoke extensively questioning the need for another automobile
dealership on Brooklyn Boulevard, pointing out that while she has nothing against such businesses,
this proposal appears to be contrary to Brooklyn Center's desire to upgrade its image. She
questioned how this development would positively contribute to the recent refurbishing of Brooklyn
Boulevard completed by Brooklyn Park and how it would enhance additional improvements planned
for Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center. Expressing pride in the Creek Villa neighborhood, Ms.
• Potter stated the 103 residents contribute $100,000 in taxes to the City and it is unfair to expose the
neighborhood to additional traffic on its rivatel owned and maintained streets. She expressed
P Y P
11 -07 -96 2
• concern that the Application process may have already proceeded to the point of acceptance and
approval by the Planning Commission/City, but expressed appreciation for the opportunity for the
neighborhood to comment on the application. It was suggested that the Applicant meet with the
Creek Villa Homeowners Association Board of Directors to further discuss their concerns. Members
of the public present strongly supported Ms. Potter's remarks.
Mr. J. Gardner, 7008 Quail Circle West, reiterated concern regarding devaluation of his property.
He stated the neighborhood did not experience problems with the Red Lobster restaurant operations.
Gardner indicated the neighborhood has been "sold a bill of goods," and expressed displeasure that
the entire Creek Villa neighborhood, including himself, was not informed of this proposal sooner.
Ms. M. Erickson, 7208 Perry Court East, reiterated concern regarding further pollution of Shingle
Creek which is 15 feet from her home, noting the Creek has not been cleared this year and is filled
with trash and garbage already.
The following residents spoke to reiterate and support the concerns expressed by previous speakers
and strongly opposed approval of the Brookdale Mitsubishi Application to establish a car dealership
on properties adjacent to the Creek Villa neighborhood. There was general support for construction
of an upscale restaurant on the site to serve area residents and contribute to the City's tax base.
Ms. R. Warling, 7107 Quail Circle East
Mr. P. Goldstein/Ms. R. Andrescik, 7212 Perry Court East
• Mr./Ms. J. Casey, 7224 Perry Court East
Mr. I. Kellin, 7108 Quail Circle West
Ms. C. Zell, 7109 Brooklyn Place
Mr. K. Wutschke, 7226 Perry Court East
Mr. R. Greenwood, 4908 Wingard Place
Mr. New Resident, 7112 Quail Circle
BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI (APPLICANT.) COMMENTS/RESPONSES
Mr. Terp stated the new and used car show floor will be combined in the Mitsubishi dealership to
avoid the use of outdoor paging. He explained that the primary display of vehicles will be on the
northeast side of the property thereby eliminating the need for extensive lighting on the south side of
the property, except for security purposes. The lighting is designed to illuminate in a straight
downward position. Mr. Terp explained that the property currently has no holding ponds and their
proposal provides for 2 ponds to purify and improve water quality before it reaches the Creek.
According to Mr. Terp, available information indicates the value of residential property will not
decrease because of the auto dealership. He suggested an independent evaluation of this matter
could be made by the Applicant on behalf of the Creek Villa residents. According to the Applicant,
the required buffer zone and additional landscaping on the vacant lot along the creek provide
significant screening between the neighborhood and the dealership. In addition an 8 ft. wood fence
could be constructed to provide further screening. With respect to the small portion of the property
that lies on the south side of Shingle Creek, Mr. Terp stated the owner has no use for it and is willing
• to donate the piece to Creek Villa Homeowners Association through a private deeding arrangement
separate from this Application, but stipulated in the development agreement.
11 -07 -96
Mr. Terp explained that the owner has looked at other locations for the dealership, has purchased
• other property in Brooklyn Park, and out -bid a restaurant for the purchase of the subject properties.
He stated their intent is not to disrupt the existing neighborhood. Mr. Terp outlined the reasons for
selection of these particular properties for construction of the Mitsubishi dealership, which include
convenience and size, and proximity to its other dealership (Toyota). He stated that if this proposal
does not go through, all or part of the properties will be put on the market for sale and some
expansion may occur in the Toyota dealership. The similarity of Brooklyn Boulevard to the 494 auto
dealership strip in Bloomington was noted and it was suggested that the City consider eliminating use
of residential streets for "test" driving by making it a traffic violation as is done in Bloomington.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OMMENTS/RESPONSES
Mr. Warren explained his role on the City staff, the application evaluation process and rezoning
procedures established by City ordinances, action timetables established by law, and the rights of the
applicant. He stated that regardless of whether or not this proposal moves forward, development of
the subject properties will be commercial in nature, and while actual figures were not available
pertaining to these properties, a commercial business contributes more to the City's tax base than a
residence. It was pointed out that the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission must review the
drainage plans for this development. City representatives described the information gathering process
including a neighborhood meeting and reiterated that while the Planning Commission makes
recommendations on Applications, the City Council makes the final decisions. While procedures
require that the City must only notify persons within 150' of the property, Mr. Warren invited other
persons present who wish to be notified of an additional meeting to provide their names and
• addresses. Subsequently, the homeowners association provided the City with the names and
addresses of all of the Creek Villa residents.
CONCLUSION
Because no appointed members of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group were present at this
meeting, it was suggested that another meeting of the Group be scheduled to consider Brookdale
Mitsubishi's Application. Some of the residents who testified at this meeting and at the Planning
Commission's October 17 public hearing disagreed that another meeting was necessary because no
additional new information would result, but would only be repetitious. Nonetheless, it was generally
agreed that another meeting of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group be arranged by City
staff. That meeting was subsequently set for Tuesday, November 26, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall. In addition, representatives of the Creek Villa Homeowners
Association may, at their discretion, meet with representatives of the Applicant at a mutually
convenient time to review the proposal.
ADJOU_R_NMFNT
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
• Arlene H. Bergfalk
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
11 -07 -96 4
• MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 26, 1996
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Representing the City of Brooklyn Center, Planning Commissioner Mark Holmes, liaison to
the Northwest Group, convened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City
Hall. Other City representatives in attendance included: Planning Commission Chair Tim
Willson, Commissioners Dianne Reem and Brian Walker, Mr. Greg McGeary, member of
the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, and Recording Secretary Arlene Bergfalk.
Messrs. Ted Terp, John Baker, and Tim O'Doughtery, representing Brookdale Mitsubishi,
were in attendance. Approximately 35 Brooklyn Center residents also attended.
Commissioner Holmes stated the purpose of the meeting is to informally review Planning
Commission Application No. 96017, submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi. The Planning
Commission, through the Neighborhood meeting, gathers information to assist in making its
• recommendation to the City Council on this application, but the Council ultimately takes
final approval/disapproval action on the Application.
This Application was considered by the Planning Commission at a meeting/public hearing
on October 17, 1996. At that meeting, the Commission tabled action on the Application,
continued the public hearing, and referred the matter to the Northwest Neighborhood
Advisory Group for its review and comment. The Commission will re -open the public
hearing, consider and take action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding this
Application at its December 12, 1996 meeting. A meeting of the Northwest Neighborhood
Advisory Group was previously held on November 7, 1996 to consider this Application.
BROOKD i E MITSUBISHI PRESENTATION
Using overhead transparencies, Mr. John Baker, Baker Associates, Inc., architect for the
proposed development, presented an overview of the location and site and building plans for
an automobile dealership to be located on a 7.9 acre site at 7223, 7227, 7231, and 7235
Brooklyn Boulevard. He described the active and functional parts of the business and noted
the 4 separate parcels will be replatted into one development parcel.
Mr. Baker presented and described a modified site plan dated November 20, 1996.
Revisions to the original plan include reconfiguration of parking to eliminate 35 spaces on
the south side of the development bordering Shingle Creek. This reconfiguration allowed
11 -26 -96 1
the architect to redesign and enlarge the buffer zone between the dealership and the Creek
• Villa neighborhood directly adjacent to the property on the south side. A diagrammatic site
section of the re- designed buffer zone was presented and described. The plan reduces paved
surface and includes construction of an earthen berm and transplantation of tall pine trees.
This modified plan is designed to address the concerns expressed by residents at previous
public and private meetings regarding noise, lighting and visual pollution from the business.
Messrs. Baker and Terp outlined the advantages of developing this property under the City's
Planned Unit Development process which includes a development agreement with the City
which will outline the specific requirements for the project. The developers distributed the
revised site plan, the redesigned buffer site section, and a memorandum dated November 20,
1996 regarding the two water quality basins proposed for the site.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Commissioner Holmes requested testimony from the public. Responses to questions and
concerns were made by applicant's representatives and City representatives.
Mr. P. Holbo, 7106 Perry Place North, reviewed his discussions with Messrs. Baker and
Terp and with the engineer and hydrologist associated with the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission. Mr. Holbo attended the November 14 Watershed meeting when
this application was considered and he indicated a number of concerns remain including the
flood way and flood plain on the site. Installation of a skimming device rather than a Weir
valve will be required as well as an operation and maintenance plan. Mr. Holbo stated he
intends to follow -up on the overall plans for the drainage ponds. He commented on the
proposed berm noting that depending upon the composition of the berm and the type of
plantings, drainage problems may result. Mr. Holbo stated the Creek Villa residents should
consider what it would take to satisfy them, what trade -offs they would be willing to accept,
and to conduct
negotiations in an objective a and professional manner.
g J P
Mr. Baker acknowledged the Watershed Commission's recommendations and stated the
Commission has approved the plan. According to Mr. Baker, additional information from
the proper authorities is necessary regarding rules and regulations for private cleanup of
Shingle Creek in the area.
Mr. R. Duffy, 7215 Perry Court East, stated he has attended 3 meetings on this issue and
supports Brookdale Mitsubishi's right to conduct a business. However, he pointed out that
currently Brooklyn Park intends to tear down properties (apartment buildings) which were
originally considered desirable tax revenue producing properties and now are not working
P gP P g
properly. Mr. Duffy stated Brooklyn Boulevard has 8 car dealerships already and that is
enough! He suggested the City pursue increasing tax revenues with an attractive, functional
and permanent business such as a nice restaurant that would be more satisfactory to
• residents. Residents do not want Brooklyn Boulevard to become another Lake Street and do
11 -26 -96 2
• not want car dealer after car dealer on the Boulevard. Mr. Duffy inquired why development
of the site is urgent and what would happen if the Mitsubishi business fails.
Mr. Terp stated that data indicates that in general car dealerships are consistent businesses;
however, should the business fail, the PUD process would begin again for a new
development on the site.
Mr. T. Willson, Chair of the Planning Commission, read, for the record, a letter dated 11-21 -
96 regarding Application No. 96017, received by the Commission members from Mr. W.
Sampson, 7208 Perry Court West.
Ms. E. Potter, 4308 Wingard Place, questioned what the City's long range plans for the City
are in terms of development, how adding car dealerships improves the City's image, is this
the highest best use of the site, does it contribute to refurbishing/improving Brooklyn
Boulevard. She suggested the City /residents study all aspects of its future with input from
all segments that comprise the City to develop a vision/plan and not allow business to
develop the City on a piece -meal basis. Ms. Potter expressed concern regarding existing
traffic problems on Brooklyn Boulevard.
Mr. T. Willson explained that during the coming year, the Planning Commission will begin
• a review /update of the City's Comprehensive Plan to consider the questions posed by Ms.
Potter and he encouraged residents to participate in this update process by attending the
public hearings to be scheduled during 1997. He pointed out the City does not allow spot
zoning, that legal time frames are imposed upon the City for action on applications that
legitimately come before it for development, and the City does not generally pursue
developers for properties available for development.
Messrs. Baker and Terp reviewed data regarding traffic counts generated by car dealerships
vs. restaurants, and described how a 3-4 story office building or high -rise constructed on the
site would impact the area. Data show that restaurants generate considerably more traffic
than auto businesses based on the number of breakfast, lunch and dinner patrons required to
sustain a successful restaurant business. In addition, it was pointed out that the sales and
service of Mitsubishi vehicles comprise a relatively small part of the overall industry as
compared to Ford or Chevrolet sales and service.
Ms. M. Erickson, 7208 Perry Court East, expressed concern regarding potential increased
water run -off from the site, how the berm would impact the Creek and her residence, and the
current status of Shingle Creek. She commented on the unfavorable aesthetics of car
dealerships located one after another and how such "rows" create safety and traffic hazards
on Brooklyn Boulevard.
•
11 -26 -96 3
• Mr. J. Moeller, 5001 Wingard Place, said the Creek Villa neighborhood does not consider
the existing Toyota dealership an acceptable neighbor and noted that the current and
potential increased use of residential streets, specifically in the Creek Villa neighborhood,
for test driving has not yet been addressed.
Mr. Terp explained that although he is not involved in the Toyota dealership he intends to
speak to the general manager and owner to suggest removal of pagers that face the south to
eliminate the noise pollution and that all the adjacent auto dealerships erect signs indicating
that test driving is not allowed on Creek Villa neighborhood streets. He pointed out that any
violations of the development agreement under the PUD would be addressed by the City and
emphasized that as general manager of the Mitsubishi franchise, he is interested in win -win
solutions to the concerns expressed by the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Ms. J. Walaszek, 7219 Perry Court East, acknowledged that the changes proposed by the
dealership indicate their efforts to be a good neighbor. She reiterated previous concerns
regarding traffic and problems associated with both left and right turns on Brooklyn
Boulevard.
Mr. G. Iverson, 7218 Perry Court East, stated he could hear the 3.a.m. trash removal from
the previous Red Lobster restaurant, indicated the berm is a good idea, appreciated the 24
hour security provided in the Mitsubishi proposal, and expressed the fact that the revised
proposal has elements he likes. He stated he would not want to see a high -rise built on that
property.
Mr. P. Goldstein, 7212 Perry Court East, inquired whether the development agreement could
stipulate operating/service hours of the business.
Mr. T. Willson responded that such a stipulation would be too narrow. Mr. Terp stated the
sales department will be open daily from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., service hours are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.,
Friday closing is at 5 p.m., and the entire business will be closed on Sundays. Given the
relatively small number of Mitsubishi sales as discussed earlier, extended service hours to
midnight or 1 p.m. are not anticipated at this time; however that possibility remains open.
Ms. L. Iverson, 7218 Perry Court East, described how the proposed berm would affect the
location of her home and explained the need for careful and thoughtful landscaping of the
berm will be necessary.
Mr. Baker stated a revised landscape plan will be prepared to meet the point system
requirements used by the City for consideration at the December 12 Planning Commission
meeting. It will included staggered plantings of various heights. In response to a question
11 -26 -96 4
regarding maintenance of the berm, it was pointed out that the development agreement will
state that landscaping installed must be maintained and irrigated.
Mr. N. Forystek, 7112 Quail Circle East, spoke on behalf of Ms. G. Forystek of the same
address, and Ms. J. Ames, 7110 Quail Circle East, and requested the Planning Commission
to consider continuing concerns including: Increased traffic flow into the Creek Villa
neighborhood, both left and right turn lane problems on Brooklyn Boulevard, and the adverse
effect on property values caused by the dubious aesthetics of car dealerships. He inquired
about the color of the proposed buildings.
Mr. T. Willson stated that when Brooklyn Boulevard is improved in the future, businesses
on the Boulevard will be required to conform to the "common look" developed under that
program. Mr. Baker said the building will be constructed of glass and rock textured concrete
blocks painted a cream color.
Ms. A. Williams, 7217 Perry Court West, preferred a well-kept car dealership rather than a
sports bar on the property.
Ms. R Andrescik Goldstein, 7212 Perry Court East, stated she would have no problem with
a sports bar on the site since in her experience such establishments are relatively subdued
• during evening hours.
Mr. Terp reviewed the common interests of the benefits of improved safety, protection and
vandalism deterrents that will result for the entire area including businesses and residents.
The resident at 7230 Perry Court East stated that an additional car dealership adjacent to the
Creek Villa neighborhood would significantly diminish the overall quality of life on a daily
basis given the noise and light pollution that currently exists and will intensify.
Ms. C. Schirmers, 7201 Perry Court East, reiterated concerns regarding the image of
Brooklyn Center and the Brookdale shopping center and how this dilemma reflects on other
City businesses. She supported a comprehensive study of the future of the City before
adding another car dealership to the Brooklyn Boulevard "strip."
Ms. K. Niewind, 7207 Perry Court East, inquired about the extent of the City's control over
the subject property.
The ownership and sale of the property was a private transaction, therefore the City had no
control; however, it's development is regulated by the City's ordinances.
•
11 -26 -96 5
Mr. K. Wutschke, 7226 Perry Court East, stated that additional traffic should not be totally
• attributed to car dealerships, but is mainly caused by substantial urban growth and sprawl.
CONCLUSION
On behalf of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, Mr. McGeary stated the issues
have been articulated clearly, discussed thoroughly, addressed by the Applicant with the
residents in mind, and it appears that all parties have been treated fairly. He complimented
the residents for their enthusiastic and thoughtful participation and the Applicant's flexibility
and efforts to negotiate a mutually satisfactory development project. Mr. McGeary indicated
that it appears the development agreement provides sufficient protection to the City and the
residents to ensure that the provisions of the agreement will be completed by the Applicant.
Mr. McGeary declined to make any positive or negative recommendation from the Northwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group to the Planning Commission on the Application and passed
the information presented at this meeting to the Commission for its consideration. It was
noted that the revisions to the original plan described and distributed at this meeting must be
formally presented to the Planning Commission for review at its December 12, 1996 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Arlene H. Bergfalk
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
•
11 -26 -96 6
• 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
DECEMBER 12, 1996
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in a regular session called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Donald Booth, Rex Newman, Dianne Reem,
and Brian Walker were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning
and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Arlene
Bergfalk. Commissioner Mark Holmes entered the meeting at 7:33 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14 1996
There was a motion by Commissioner Booth, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve the
minutes of the November 14, 1996 meeting, amended on Page 6, paragraph 5, sentence 1: "There
• was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Booth ,..." The motion passed
unanimously.
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.
NO 7 R O SHI
APPLICATION 9601 (B O KDALE MITSLJBI )
Chair Willson introduced Application No. 96017, a request for rezoning j and site and building plan
approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from Brookdale Mitsubishi to
develop an automobile sales and service dealership on property located at 7223, 7227, 7231, and
7235 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Secretary presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location and site
and building plans for the development. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Application No. 96017 dated 12 -12 -96 attached.) Mr. Warren reviewed the history of the
application. The initial application is detailed in Planning Commission Information Sheet,
Application No. 96017, dated October 17, 1996, and the Planning Commission meeting minutes of
October 17, 1996. In addition, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting minutes of
November 7 and November 26, 1996 detail the Group's review of the application.
•
12 -12 -96 1
The property is currently zoned C -2 (Commerce) and C -1 (Service/Office). Because automobile
• sales and service are not comprehended under the C -1 zoning district, the applicant seeks rezoning,
based on a site development plan, to a PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce)
designation. This designation allows the proposed use through a development agreement between
the City and Brookdale Mitsubishi outlining the conditions and development restrictions and
limitations associated with the proposal. A letter dated 9 -19 -96 from Mr. Ted Terp, the applicant,
outlines benefits of the rezoning and development to the City of Brooklyn Center from the
applicant's perspective.
Following the first Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting, the applicant submitted a revised site
plan which eliminates 56 parking spaces on the southeasterly side of the site to allow additional
landscaping and construction of an 8 ft. high earthen berm. The revision is designed to provide
additional screening for the Creek Villa townhomes located on the south side of Shingle Creek. The
landscape plan submitted exceeds the City's point system used to evaluate landscape plans. Staff
recommends possible addition of a screen fence along the Unity Place townhome area.
The plan meets parking requirements and grading and utility plans are acceptable. The drainage and
ponding plans are approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission subject to its standard
conditions (Commission's Project Review SC 96- 21:Brookdale Mitsubishi, dated 12- 5 -96).
Mr. Warren explained that the basis for consideration of the re- zoning application is the evaluation
• policy and review guidelines of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Planned Unit Development
provisions and procedures. The issues involving disposition of this application were reviewed and
are detailed in the Information Sheet. The Secretary read resolutions prepared for denial or approval
of the Application. Denial is based primarily on the proposal's inconsistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan; approval is based on revision of the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the
rezoning as being in the overall best interests of the community. An additional condition regarding
access to the site in the approval resolution was noted by the secretary.
Mr. Warren stated the public hearing for the PUD /C -2 rezoning and site and building plan is to be
reopened at this meeting.
Chair Willson called for questions from the Commissioners. In response to questions from
Commissioners Holmes and Boeck regarding the current zoning and existing variances of the
parcels, Mr. Warren reviewed the zoning history and descriptions of the various parcels that
comprise the site. Commissioner Reem asked whether the existing Toyota dealership could expand
into the C -2 zoned parcel, and Mr. Warren replied that it could do so. Commissioner Walker
inquired about the lighting plan particularly as it relates to the berm to be constructed.
Mr. Warren responded to Commissioner Boeck's questions regarding replatting of the parcels,
setbacks and easements from the Creek, and disposition of the portion of a parcel that extends across
the Creek. Mr. Warren explained that a formal request to replat the parcels into one property must
be submitted by the applicant, and could include the applicant's intent for that segment of the plat.
•
12 -12 -96 2
• PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 96017
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to re -open the
public hearing on Application No. 96017 at 8:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. John Baker, Baker Associates, architect for the development, reviewed several aspects of the
project. The revised plans respond to major concerns expressed by the Creek Villa neighborhood:
noise and light pollution, water quality, and traffic. Mr. Baker explained that construction and
landscaping of the berm provides screening for the Creek Village townhomes across the Creek,
whereas a sizable open space separates the development from the Unity townhouse complex located
some distance away from the site. Mr. Baker stated the access to the site will be relocated, the
dealership will not use an outdoor paging system and an agreement with Toyota will re- direct its
outdoor paging system to the north. The primary signage will be located on the Brooklyn Park side
of the site facing Brooklyn Boulevard; 1 candlefoot security lamps will be installed on the south
side; and the use of 25' poles will reduce glare. Mr. Baker reiterated that the water quality issues
have been addressed and the plans meet the requirements of the Watershed Commission. With
respect to traffic, Mr. Baker pointed out that significantly more traffic is generated by a 200 -300 seat
restaurant vs a car dealership such as Mitsubishi. The highest part of the building will be 24 feet;
will be located 150' from the Creek and 200' from the Creek Villa townhomes; and the permanent
earthen berm will shield the Creek Villa townhomes from visibility and noise. In addition, Mr.
Baker stated there will be no night or Sunday business hours at the dealership.
Commissioner Walker inquired whether any signs will be facing the townhomes. Mr. Baker
• explained the pylon sign would be located on a portion of the property near the access that actually
lies in Brooklyn Park and will be angled toward the street, other signage will be on the front of the
building, and a small light may be added above the service door.
Mr. Baker described the traffic flow on the site and indicated the access to the property will be
realigned with the one across Brooklyn Boulevard. He responded to Commissioners' questions
regarding the berm and the signage. Mr. Warren provided additional information regarding the
property lines of adjoining residential properties and the open space referred to by Mr. Baker.
Ms. E. Potter, 4803 Wingard Place, provided a history of the Creek Villa development, its residents,
its tax contribution, and described the homeowners continuous efforts to enhance overall pride in
the community. She spoke against rezoning of the property to accommodate the auto dealership
primarily questioning the desirability of another dealership on Brooklyn Boulevard and requested
the Commission's consideration of the impact of the proposal on residents and decreased property
values of the Creek Villa townhomes.
Ms. L. Halverson, 8633 Edinbrook Crossing, spoke as a character witness for Mr. Ted Terp. She
stated Mr. Terp has demonstrated that he will be a good neighbor, bring a positive image to the
community, support youth hockey, and the business will provide additional jobs.
12 -12 -96 3
Mr. Mark Morcomb, 5018 -63rd Avenue North, spoke in support of the project because it makes
• sense to have another car dealership and it will have a positive impact on the City of Brooklyn
Center.
Ms. Shantell Stark, 5221 -63rd Avenue North, reiterated support for the development noting it will
provide a service site for local Mitsubishi owners, provide support to the community, and bring
additional jobs to the City. While she sympathized with the neighborhood's concerns, the positive
aspects of the business, including increased use of other City businesses and further opportunities,
are important.
Mr. D. Russ, representing the Welsh Companies, distributed a 12 -10 -96 letter regarding the
marketing and sale of the former Red Lobster property, and a 12 -9 -96 letter from Darden Restaurants
regarding the closure of that Restaurant. He reviewed the sale process, difficulties encountered, and
indicated re- zoning of the property provides the best use of the property.
Mr. Terp responded to Commissioner Boeck's inquiry regarding assembly of the various parcels that
comprise the property. Commissioner Boeck stated the package of properties put together for one
use of the site is the best for the City.
Mr. P. Holbo, 7106 Perry Place, stated the applicant has worked with the Creek Villa neighborhood.
However, water quality issues remain a concern because the retention ponds do not meet current
NERP standards. He recommended that approval of this project should require maintenance of the
• berm in a natural state and improvement and maintenance of the retention ponds with the goal of
improving the current substandard conditions. Mr. Holbo supported Ms. Potter's comments noting
they reflect the Creek Villa Homeowners' Association position against the rezoning and development
of a car dealership as proposed.
Chair Willson read a 12 -3 -96 letter addressed to the Commission received from Ms. R. Goldstein,
7212 Perry Court, outlining opposition to the re- zoning because of the negative impact on property
values and on the image of Brooklyn Center, and noise and light pollution created by a car
dealership.
Following discussion, no Commissioner interposed an objection to the re- zoning and site and
building plans submitted under Application No. 96017, submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 96017
There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Booth, to close the
public hearing at 9:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 96017
Commissioner Boeck introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption:
•
12 -12 -96 4
• RESOLUTION NO. 96-3
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 96017 SUBMITTED BY BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner
Newman, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. Chair Willson,
Commissioners Boeck, Booth, Newman and Reem, and Commissioners Holmes and Walker against
the same, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 2. (Reasons for the votes against the application were neither
requested nor articulated, therefore, are unknown.)
The Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, January 13, 1997 meeting. The
applicant must be present.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Warren referred to the abbreviated 1997 Commission meeting schedule, noted that Commission
meetings will be on Wednesdays during January and February, and revert to Thursdays in March for
the remainder of the year. Reappointments to the Planning Commission will be made by the Council
on December 16, 1996. Mr. Warren thanked the Commissioners for their work and attendance
during 1996.
•
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:25
p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Arlene Bergfalk
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
•
12 -12 -96 5
• Member Graydon Boeck introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -3
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 96017 SUBMITTED BY
BROOKDAi E MITS TBISHI
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 96017 submitted by Brookdale
Mitsubishi proposes rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) and C -1 (Service /Office) to PUD /C -2
(Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of 7.035 acres of land located at 7223, 7227, 7231 and
7235 Brooklyn Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned
property and site and building plan approval for an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. Mitsubishi
dealership and the use of an existing 6,081 sq. ft. building for associated uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on October
17, 1996 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building
plan were received and reviewed with the Planning Commission continuing the public hearing and
• referring the application to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and
comment; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this
matter on November 7, 1996 and November 26, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group because of a lack of
a quorum made no recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding this application but
offered instead minutes relating to the comments received from interested persons and the
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on
December 12, 1996 received an additional staff report and took further testimony during a
continued public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning and site and building plan
request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in
Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development
ordinance contained in Section 35 -355, and the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning
• Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 96017 submitted
by Brookdale Mitsubishi be approved in light of the following considerations:
• 1. That the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is currently being updated, be revised
during this process so that the land use designation map designate the area under
consideration as being appropriate for a general commerce use rather than the split
commerce and service /office designation that it currently has.
2. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered to be compatible
with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the
City's Zoning Ordinance, given the revision to the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization
of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to, and
of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding
land.
4. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Rezoning and Planned Unit
Development proposal will, with the exception of allowing automobile repair adjacent
to R-3 zoned property, conform with City ordinance standards and is justified on the
basis of the development plan submitted containing extraordinary screening of the site
including a large earthen berm and coniferous trees which should diminish any impact
on surrounding land uses.
• 5. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal appear to be a good utilization
of the property under consideration in that it allows for a reasonable redevelopment of
the property in a unified manner containing appropriate buffering and screening.
6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating
rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and
that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory
Commission to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 96017 be subject
to the following conditions and considerations:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with
respect to applicable codes, prior to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage and utility plans area subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to
be determined based on cost estimates) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. i f _
• 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop r on around mechanical equipment
P b �
shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet
the NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
7. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
8. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee.
9. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and
inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits.
10. The applicant is subject to the requirements and regulations of the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission with respect to this site. The storm drainage
system shall be acceptable to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
and the applicant shall comply with any conditions imposed by the body prior to the
issuance of permits.
`i 11. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an
approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and files with
Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits.
12. The plans submitted shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to be
consistent with the revised plan showing and 8 ft. high earthen berm and landscape
treatment. Said plans, which must be modified, include the drainage and utility plan,
the site lighting plan, and any other plan showing the site and building proposed with
this project.
13. The applicant has agreed to not use any outdoor public address system for paging
employees on the site.
14. The property should be replatted into a single parcel with the triangular piece of
property located in Brooklyn Park being dedicated to this site through a legal
encumbrance. Said plat should receive final approval by the City Council and be
filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of building permits.
15. Modifications to accesses on Brooklyn Boulevard are subject to approval by
Hennepin County and their permit process.
• 16. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said
agreement shall acknowledge the use of this site as an automobile sales and service
• dealership as proposed under the development plans and shall acknowledge all
previously stated conditions of approval and assure compliance with development
plans submitted by the applicant.
December 12, 1996
Date ( Chair
ATTEST-.
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rex Newman and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Booth, Newman and Reem.
and the following voted against the same: Commissioners Holmes and Walker .
• whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
• i
DEC -10 -96 TUE 19:35 P.02/04
it • D4 Mull i U 131
DARDEN
•
RESTAURANTS
Fled Lobster" The Olive C+r On*
Dec 9. 1996
Chris Simmozas
welsh Companies
8200 Normandale Blvd., Ste. 240
Minneapolis, MN 55437 - 1060
Re: Former Red Lobster
RrOukdyn Cevter, MN
Dear Chris:
Per your inquiry, we closed the above restaurant because it was not a profitable one fo
us, Sales lead continued to decli uc over the last few year$ and with our site being located .
out of the new restaurant focal area, we did not feel that we could increase sales
. significantly in the foreseeable future.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
D
Bruce A. Geiso
Real l 3WV Mar�agcr
BA,G /sks
5900 Lake Skbnor DTIva • P. O. Box 593330 • Orl Floejds► =859.Mo * (407) 245 -4009
TOTAL P.01
DEC -10 -96 TUE 19;35 P,03/04
L U Companies
• Comprehensive Real Estate Services
6200 Normandale B0UICVdLt1, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437
612.897.7700 Fax 897.7704
December 10, 1996
Ted Terp
Metro Mitsubishi
Motors Management Corporation
8099 Penn Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55431
RE: FORMER RED LOBSTER, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
Dear Ted-
Pursuant to our recent conversation, Welsh Companies started marketing fhe above - referenced•
property extensively beginning October 1995. During that period, we did not receive any
legitimate, creditworthy offers other than yours.
Further, because there are numerous available properties in the Brookdale Trade Area, the amount
of interest in this and many other potential restaurant locations in this market was relatively low.
Another contributing factor was the location of this restaurant. Most national and regional
• restaurant chains look for high traffic locations with good visibility when looking for potential
locations. This location presented a challenge because it is situated almost a mile north of
Interstate 94 between the Brookdale and Brooklyn Park Trade Areas, (where most of the chain
restaurants are located and where most interest lies for potential restaurants).
The property was marketed to your adjacent car dealership because it appeared that it had little
room to maneuver and no opportunities in which to expand. The overflow of cars on the vacant
Red Lobster property was a good indicator that the dealership was doing quite well at its present
location and needed room for expansion.
The property was sold to the most logical buyer on August 14, 1996, after receiving no other
creditworthy o crs on the property for just under a year.
Please I e if you have any questions.
Sin r ,
C ' t pher E. Simmons
Retail Associate
612/897 -7760
c: John Johannson, Welsh Companies
Bruce Geise, Darden Restnurants
s•7 nFTa�l,+ cs�r� .uenrrs�n.errnr�rr�vntnzrrn
�w
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
• its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF
KRISTEN MANN FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AS COUNCIL
MEMBER
WHEREAS, Kristen Mann served as a member of the Brooklyn Center City
Council from January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1996; and
WHEREAS, her service to the City and her consistent leadership have contributed
substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and
WHEREAS, her public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community
merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that her services and achievements for the
betterment of the City be permanently recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
• Brooklyn Center that Kristen Mann is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn
Center and this resolution serves as a visible and lasting expression of gratitude for the leadership
and service she has rendered and the benefits she has secured to the citizens of the City of
Brooklyn Center.
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 a the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
qb
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
• its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF
CHARLES F. NICHOLS, SR., FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AS
COUNCIL MEMBER
WHEREAS, Charles F. Nichols, Sr., served as a member of the Brooklyn Center
City Council from March 26, 1996, through December 31, 1996; and
WHEREAS, his service to the City and his consistent leadership have contributed
substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community
merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his services and achievements for the
betterment of the City be permanently recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
• Brooklyn Center that Charles F. Nichols, Sr., is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City
of Brooklyn Center and this resolution serves as a visible and lasting expression of gratitude for
the leadership and service he has rendered and the benefits he has secured to the citizens of the
City of Brooklyn Center.
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.
•
9c,
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
• RESOLUTION
NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF
ARNOLD MAVIS FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE
WHEREAS, Arnold Mavis has been an employee of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Recreation Division, from October 6, 1969, to January 17, 1997; and
WHEREAS, Arnold Mavis has been the Director of Recreation from 1985 to 1997;
and
WHEREAS, Arnold Mavis has increased the number of teams participating in adult
athletics and has greatly improved the quality of Brooklyn Center's athletic program; and
WHEREAS, Arnold Mavis has managed the Community Center and Centerbrook Golf
Course and has established quality swim lesson and golf league programs; and
WHEREAS, Arnold Mavis has planned and developed special community events
including Holly Sunday, Dudley /Budweiser Softball Classic, fireworks, pool events, and the
community's first festival called Early Bird Days; and
• WHEREAS, his dedicated P ublic service and civic effort for the betterment of the
community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be
recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center that the dedicated public service of Arnold Mavis is hereby recognized and appreciated by
the City of Brooklyn Center.
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.
YP P
• Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF
MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED ON CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, several citizens have voluntarily served on City Advisory
Commissions; and
WHEREAS, their public service and civic effort for the betterment of the
community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, their leadership and expertise have been greatly appreciated by the
Brooklyn Center Advisory Commissions; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that each member's service to the community
should be recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of:
• Lee Anderson, Financial Commission
Charles Forrest, Human Rights and Resources Commission
Amy Gonyea, Housing Commission
Kay Lasman, Park and Recreation Commission
Robert Mickelson, Planning Commission
Charlotte Nesseth, Human Rights and Resources Commission
Rex Newman, Housing Commission
Dean Nyquist, Human Rights and Resources Commission
Phyllis Owens, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Advisory Commission
Kathryn Palm, Planning Commission
Phillip Roche, Financial Commission
Jill Schendel, Park and Recreation Commission
is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center and staff is directed to
prepare individual certificates of appreciation for each commission member.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
•
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
•
9,5
3 City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM:
Sharon Knutson City lerk
tY
DATE: January 8, 1997
SUBJECT: Select Presiding fficers - Mayor Pro Tern and Actin Mayor Pro Tern g Y g Y
Section 2.06 of the City harter requires the Council to choose from its members a Mayor pro tem
tY q Y P
who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council and shall serve as Mayor in the Mayor's absence
and as Mayor in case of the Mayor's disability or absence from the City. City Council Resolution
No. 92 -262, Establishing and Designating an Acting President Pro Tern of the City Council, states
the most senior Council member shall preside in the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor pro
tem, and that in the event two or more members have equal seniority, then that member shall
preside who received the most votes in their most recent election. Following is a list of Council
• members by seniority.
Debra Hilstrom (elected November 8, 1994, with 5,193 votes)
Kathleen Carmody (elected November 8, 1994, with 4,201 votes)
Kay Lasman (elected November 5, 1996, with 5,775 votes)
Robert Peppe (elected November 5, 1996, with 5,092 votes)
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption: 92 -262 O RESOLUTION NO. c(31V
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND DESIGNATING AN ACTING
PRESIDENT PRO TEM OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, Section 2.06 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter
designates the Mayor as presiding officer of the City Council and
a president pro tem who serves as president in the Mayor's absence;
and
WHEREAS, the presence of three City Council members at a
City Council meeting constitutes a quorum; and
WHEREAS, it is possible that both the Mayor and the
president pro tem may be absent from such a meeting, consequently
leaving no designated presider of the meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide for an
acting president pro tem who shall serve in the absence of the
Mayor and president pro tem.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that the most senior Councilmember shall
preside in the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor pro tem.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event two or more
members have equal seniority, then that member shall preside who
received the most votes in their most recent election.
N 2 1 9 9 2
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy C erk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Philip Cohen , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen;
and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
DATE: January 8, 1997
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter,
Pledging Fair Treatment of Employees, Declaring Against Conflicts of
Interest and Misuse of Positions
On June 22, 1992, Resolution No. 92 -149 was adopted by the City Council. The resolution
directs the City Manager to place it for readoption on the agenda for the first meeting of the
City Council each January as information and reminder of Council /Manager responsibilities.
•
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Af)irmatiue Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COMMITMENT' TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER
CITY CHARTER, PLEDGING FAIR TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES,
DECLARING AGAINST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND MISUSE OF
POSITIONS
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center voters in 1966 adopted a City Charter creating a
Council/Manager form of government; and
WHEREAS, said Charter provides that the City Council shall determine all matters
of policy, and the City Manager shall be the head of the administrative branch of the City
Government; and
WHEREAS, the Charter provides that there be no separate administrative boards
or commission other than advisory boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, numerous advisory commissions have served the City since adoption
of the Charter; and
•
WHEREAS the r vi f four Council members and a Mayor, e provides or ou Co c b
P Y i all
elected at large, with the Mayor entitled to a single vote as other Council members and who in
addition serves as presiding officer of the Council and as official head of the City for ceremonial
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Charter provides that "the Mayor shall study the operations of the
City government and shall report to the Council any neglect, dereliction of duty, or waste on the
part of any officer or department of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Charter provides that "the Council and the City Manager, or either
of them, and any officer formally authorized by them, or either of them, shall have power to make
investigations into the City's affairs, to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and compel the
production of books and papers "; and
WHEREAS, the Charter provides that the City Manager shall control and direct
all departments and divisions of the City and shall have the right to take part in Council discussion
and shall recommend such measures as deemed necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Charter prohibits Council members from dictating the appointment
of any person to office or employment by the City Manager except as provided in Chapter 6 of
• this Charter; and
• RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the Charter requires the Council to deal with and control the
administrative service solely through the City Manager and prohibits any Council member from
giving orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is charged by the Charter to see that the City
Charter and the laws and resolutions of the City are enforced; and
WHEREAS, the Council as a whole also has an obligation to police its own conduct
and to ensure that its business is conducted pursuant to the City Charter and the norms of
acceptable and courteous business behavior; and
WHEREAS, Council members must depend upon the City Manager and staff to
provide them with a great amount of background information, data, and expertise to aid in
deliberating issues, developing policy, and administering the Council's responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the services provided by the staff is in large part
determined by a relationship of trust and mutual respect between the staff and the City Council.
NOW
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council:
1. To rededicate itself to the spirit and letter of the City Charter, and to call
to account any of its members who ignore the spirit and letter of the City
Charter.
2. To rededicate itself to the checks and balances of the City Charter that keep
City government accountable and to reaffirm its commitment to the first
amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution.
3. To pledge that no employees suffer recriminations, abuse or humiliation for
acting in a forthright, proper, honest, and candid manner in performing
their responsibilities.
4. To discharge its responsibilities as intended and established by federal,
state, and local laws and the City Charter, and to do so in a fair and
impartial manner. Any City officials or employees, elected or appointed,
who engage in conflict of interest or who use their positions in a self-
serving manner, havin g promoting the effect of romotin their own financial interest
or the financial interest of a friend, associate, business employer, or
relative instead of the ublic interest shall be subject to censure b the
P J Y Ci
• ty
Council.
RESOLUTION NO.
•
5. To direct the City Manager to place this resolution for readoption on the
agenda for the first meeting of the City Council each January hereafter, as
information and reminder of Council/Manager responsibilities.
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
Amended
City Council
Meeting Schedule
1997
JANUARY ,JU
13 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. 14 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
27 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. 28 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
FEBRUARY AUGUST
10 - Regular Session 7 .m. 11 - Regular Session, 7
� P gu s es .m p
18 - Council /Housing Comm., 7 .m. 18 - Budget Work Session 7
P g .m. P
20 - Council Retreat 2 .m. EBHC 2 - Regular 5 R ar Session 7
P Su .m. P
24 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
SEPTEMBER
MARCH 8 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
10 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. 11 - Council /Planning Comm., 7:30 p.m.
18 - Council /Park & Rec Comm., 6:30 p.m. 22 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
24 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
OCTOBER
APR- 14 (Tues) Regular Session, 7 p.m.
9 - Council /Human Rights Comm., 7 p.m. 27 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
14 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. 29 - Council /Charter Comm., 7 p.m.
21 - Board of Equalization, 7 p.m.
28 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
NOVEMBER
10 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
MAY 24 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
1 - Council /Financial Comm., 7 p.m.
12 - Regular Session, 7
� .m. P
19 - Budget Work Session, 7 p.m. DECEMBER
27 (Tues) - Regular Session, 7 p.m. 15 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
JUNE
9 - Regular Session, 7 p.m
23 - Regular Session, 7 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk J
DATE: January 8, 1997
SUBJECT: Appointment of Council Member to Serve as City Representative
Following is a list of boards, committes, or commissions which require a City Council
representative be appointed annually:
League of Minnesota Cities Representative
North Metro Mayors Association Representative
Northwest Suburban Cable Communications Commission
Tri -City Airport Commission/Crystal Airport Safety Committee
•
•
.'y Al
a
• m( • f
i
BROOKLYN CENTER
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael McCauley City Manager
FROM: Ron Boman Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Above ground tank for North Memorial
Transportation center.
DATE: January 8, 1995
Enclosed is some information on above ground storage vaults for above ground storage
and dispensing of motor fuels for vehicles. I have met with North when they inquired about
using an above ground storage tank for motor fuels on transportation facility on 68th and
• Lee Ave. No.
As you can see from the enclosed information above ground storage tanks are well -
designed starting with steel tank, insulation, outside containment liner, wire mesh and then
completely covered with concrete. These are safe and eliminate the possibility of an under
ground leak, but are limited too how much fuel that can be stored in each tank.
It is my opinion that because of the location of their building this would be an excellent
alternative to using a buried tank. Although North Memorial tanks may not be identical to
this unit, it will be similar.
•
Nationwide interest in the
preservation of our environment has
_ prompted all levels of government to
` E _ issue strict guidelines for the
installation, operation and removal of
underground storage tanks (USTs). As
a result owners may be faced with
expensive upgrades, testing, monitoring
equipment and pollution liability
insurance to comply with these
regulations. In the event of a leak, the
actual costs for soil and groundwater -
clean-up can be catastrophic.
ConVault's innovative aboveground
storage tanks are the proven solution for
these problems. The ConVault patented
k
system is designed for value and safety'
to meet environmental regulations and
fire safety requirements.
�e
M009
The Leader in
Aboveground
Containment
U.S. Patent #'s4826655,493123 •
(Other U.S. & Foreign Patents Pending) �` `': ` �` �`` ~"� t L z 3
C ONVAULTs Practical Products fora Sensitive Environment.
t last there is a practical alternative ! ConVault's complete fuel storage and tipping during earthquakes and other
for storing petroleum -based dispensing system is a finished unit when natural disasters. Earthquake restraint
roducts and other flammable and shipped from one of the convenient hardware is available where necessary.
hazardous substances: ConVault's regional manufacturing plants. Units are I The units rests four inches above the
complete aboveground vaulted tank and manufactured under strict quality control
fueling system. Constructed of steel and standards, with no need for excavation, ground and contains a simple- leak
o
housed in an attractive concrete vault, dikes, painting, assembly or completion detector tube that enables the owner to
the double containment tank is a state- of the vault. In most cases, additional monitor the unit manually for leaks.
of -the -art; cost - efficient way to meet expenses are limited to the cost of a
your storage needs. concrete pad and electrical service Guaranteed to Meet
Each unit contains a UL listed rec- if desired. Govenunent Environmental
tan lar steel tank enclosed in secon-
� E ConVault's nationwide leasing pro- and Fire Safety Regulati
dary containment and encased in 6 gram offers flexible and attractive
inches of reinforced concrete to meet 31 ConVault tanks meet applicable
lease- to-own options for both PP
P
the requirements for a special enclosure. commercial and government users. safety requirements for secondary
containment, leak monitoring, and
ConVault has already become the i If required, ConVault can arrange for spill and overfill protections.
storage tank of choice for all levels reasonable pollution liability insurance
of government and many national through a major insurer for installations Convault Tanks meet EPA
corporations. specifications for aboveground tanks
� throughout the United States. speci
and are, in fact, currently in use in all
regions of the country.
;-1 Engineered for Safety 11 ConVault tanks have already been
JjJ
. ,LYT4 � ConVault's seamless 6 -inch concrete approved by fire officials in many local
and state jurisdictions. They meet
vault and insulation layer gives thermal NFPA •30 and 30A fire safety stan-
protection that minimizes temperature per
P P dards and are fitted for grounding g
Designed for Value change for flammable liquids stored in NFPA 78. The unit also complies with
excessively hot or cold environments.
Y Fire Code i the 1991 Uniform Appendix
The system contains no cold joints or II -F for the aboveground storage and
3 The ConVault storage system often
costs less than half as much as compar heat transfer points on the bottom or dispensing of motor fuels.
sides .
able underground installations. The 3 ConVault tanks have been certified
elimination of system design engineering -2 The monolithic concrete shell pro- by the California Air Resources Board
alone can pay for the complete ConVault vides 2 -hour fire protection based on for Balance Phase 2 Vapor Recovery.
fueling system. Tank capacities range tests by Warnock- Hersey, International ConVault tanks and overfill contain -
from 250 gallons to 5,200 gallons and and Underwriters Laboratories of
can be manifoided for higher volumes. Canada (ULC). It is also bullet resistant, ers bear UL labels and meet or exceed
UL Standard 142 (Steel Tanks). They
1 Use of the ConVault tank may I Designed in a rectangular shape with have also been tested based on US Stan-
eliminate surcharge fees, expensive a low center of gravity. ConVault tanks dard 1709 to demonstrate 2 -hour fire pro -
monitoring equipment, annual testing can withstand vehicle incursions and tection for the steel tank and its contents.
costs, pollution liability insurance and
bonding or other financial responsibil- �,,
ities —all unfortunate necessities with an C�$$- $tLT'C9�� . p,.• 4 : �: �;:'.... ,_
underground installation.
.g ar
.
•r
(:•'t STEEL TANK (.135'
3 ConVault tanks have a long life; each r . INSULATION (15 et
�'
comes with a standard 20 -year warranty. �. LINER (30 MIL)
A 30 -year warranty is optional. �;? WIRE MESH (.135'D
;!- CONCRETE (6.0')
�3 ConVault tanks are self - contained
and portable. This allows for tank �....�..•. ; ; ;;.;P;;b .;_
relocation or resale as your business
requirements change.
Nor th 3300 North Oakdale
l Robbinsdale, MN 55422 -2900
Fax( I tki (612
Memorial
Fax {612)520 -7567
Hea lth Care,
�OTI11= 1= 1rt« �����H�� « <<l ��� - < <�rr�� «.%���«�� North Medical Transportation Services
17 December 1996
Mike McCauley
City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. McCauley:
North Medical Transportation Services(NMTS) is seeking approval for an on -site fuel
station at our Brooklyn Center Facility. This site serves as NMTS Headquarters and all
our Metro Operations are based out of this facility. If approved, the on -site fuel would
supply our Metro vehicle fleet with all of its diesel fuel needs.
In order for final approval, the State Fire Marshal is requesting a certified /notarized
• approval letter from the City of Brooklyn Center. The Fire Marshal has requested that
Counsel's approval should be a letter or a transcript of the minutes regarding approval
of NMTS on -site fuel. The site plan has already been approved by Clay Larson with the
City of Brooklyn Center.
Please forward any approval letter /transcript to me at the above address. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter. If you have any further questions please call me at
520 -5789.
Sincerely,
Kelly J. Spratt
Manager, Metro Operations
•
J
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
• its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL HANDBOOK REGARDING
ORDER OF BUSINESS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a City Council Handbook on January 23,
1995, which provided for Opening Ceremonies in its Order of Business; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96 -162 which amended its
Order of Business replacing
Opening Ceremonies with Moment of and Silence; P g P g ,
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to modify its Order of Business replacing
Moment of Silence with Spoken Prayer Invocation; and
WHEREAS, prayer as part of our civic processes has been a tradition in America
since the founding of this nation; and
WHEREAS, America was founded in large part to ensure religious tolerance and
the free exercise of religion; and
•
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has its own long - standing tradition of
respecting the practice of prayer invocations preceding its public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Brooklyn Center have great care that such practices
which have the power to bring peace and wisdom to this community are continued in our civic
life.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Council Handbook be and hereby is amended to read
as follows relating to the Order of Business:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Spoken Prayer Invocation*
4. Council Report
5. Presentations
6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
7. Open Forum
8. Public Hearing
9. Planning Commission Items
• 10. Council Consideration Items
11. Adjournment
RESOLUTION NO.
*All members of the City Council shall share equally in the responsibility for
determining who shall be permitted to deliver said invocations, and said
invocations shall not exceed two minutes in length.
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.
•
January 1, 1997
RESOLUTION REPLACING A MOMENT OF SILENCE PRECEDING BROOKLYN
CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WITH A SPOKEN PRAYER INVOCATION.
WHEREAS prayer as part of our civic processes has been a tradition in America since
the founding of this nation, and;
WHEREAS America itself was founded in large part to ensure religious tolerance and the
free exercise of religion, and;
WHEREAS the city of Brooklyn Center has its own long- standing tradition of respecting
the practice of prayer invocations preceding its public meetings, and;
WHEREAS the citizens of Brooklyn Center have great care that such practices which
have the power to bring peace and wisdom to this community are continued in our civic
life.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that a spoken prayer invocation shall replace a moment of silence
preceding all City Council meetings
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all members of the City Council shall share equally
in the responsibility for determining who shall be permitted to deliver said invocations,
and that said invocations shall not exceed two minutes in length..
RES FCTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert T. Peppe
•
MEMORANDUM
• TO:
Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Charlie Hansen Finance Director c H
DATE: December 17, 1996
SUBJECT: Rotation of Deloitte & Touche Personnel
At last night's City Council meeting, a question was asked about how often Deloitte & Touche
rotates new personnel into the City's audit. Deloitte normally assigns four people to our audit.
The are: a partner, a manager, an in charge accountant, and a junior accountant. The in charge
accountant and junior accountant do most of the work in our offices while the partner and manager
are in contact by phone and review work at Deloitte's office.
Deloitte has audited the City since 1987. It has been their policy throughout this time to rotate
in at least one new person out of the four assigned to our audit each year. The more junior
members of their team rotate more frequently than the senior members. All of the positions have
changed at least once, usually several times since 1987.
• For this year's audit, Deloitte has informed me that last year's manager and in charge accountant
are leaving our team. There will be a new manager assigned. Last year's junior accountant will
become this year's in charge accountant and a new junior accountant will be assigned.
•
�L
• MEMO
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren Planning d Zoning S ecialie -?av '
g g p
Subject: Sign Ordinance Regulations Regarding Craft Sales
Date: December 19, 1996
You have requested information regarding the City's Sign Ordinance relative to the placement
of signs for a craft sale. Apparently, someone had appeared at the City Council's Open
Forum on December 16, 1996 questioning code enforcement action regarding an off - premise
advertising sign for a craft sale at this person's home. The off - premise sign had been put up at
the Marquette Bank, with the bank's permission.
It is my understanding that the party in question was conducting an in -home sale of craft items
• which she had made. Such sales are considered to be the same as "rummage sales or garage
sales ", provided they are conducted in accordance with the regulations established for such
sales. Section 34 -110 of the Sign Ordinance and Section 35 -900 of the Zoning Ordinance
define a rummage sale as "The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant on his
or her premises, of personal property, including general household rummage, used clothing
and appliances, provided: the exchange or sale of merchandise is conducted within the
residence or accessory structure; the number of sales does not exceed four (4) per year; the
duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) consecutive days; any related signery.shall
conform with the Sign Ordinance provisions; and the conduct of the sale does not encroach
upon the peace, health, safety or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center."
Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2m regarding permitted signs, not requiring a permit, authorizes
rummage sale signs as follows:
1. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding 6 sq. ft. in area, identifying the location of
and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers,
balloons, stringers or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on
the property where the sale is being conducted. The sign and other devices may be
displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination.
2. Temporary off -site signs not exceeding 3 sq. ft. in area, indicating the location
• and /or time of the rummage sale may be located on other residential property (not
commercial, industrial, or public property) provided that property owner's
December 19, 1996
• Sign Ordinance Regulations Memo
Page 2
permission has been obtained to display such signery. These signs may be displayed
for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination.
3. Rummage sale signs must conform in all other respects with the provisions of this
ordinance.
Other provisions in the ordinance which these signs must comply with are listed in Section 34-
130 and include, but are not necessarily limited to: signs are not to be placed within the public
right -of -way; signs are not to be tacked or posted on trees, fences, utility poles or other such
supports; and off premise signs may not be posted except as allowed in the above mentioned
section relating to rummage sale signs.
Commercial properties, such as the Marquette Bank, are entitled under the Zoning Ordinance,
at Section 35 -800, Subdivision 2b, to two administrative permits per calendar year, not to
exceed ten consecutive days in duration for miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or
promotional events. To properly authorize the use of the Marquette Bank property for the
purposes of advertising or promoting the craft sale, an administrative permit would have to be
issued and this would have constituted one of the two permits that Marquette Bank is entitled
to per calendar year. No such permit was applied for or obtained. I am certain this along
with the fact that the sign was posted on commercial property, were the reasons why code
enforcement follow -up on the placement of the craft sale sign was undertaken.
It has also been indicated that the Cross of Glory Church has entrance signs related to their
construction project that are tacked on power poles. The party appearing at the Open Forum
questioned why this was allowed, while action was taken against her sign. Such a sign would
also be prohibited. I will contact the Police Department for follow -up on this sign as well.
I hope this memo addresses and /or clarifies the concerns expressed. If there are other
questions or concerns regarding this or other related sign/zoning matters, please contact me.
✓CC: Scott Kline, Police Chief
•
��pOKLYM CEiyt�
i
BROOKLYN CENTER
POLICE DEPARTMENT POL ICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Community Service Personnel
FROM: Chief Scott Kline
DATE: December 18, 1996
SUBJECT: Residential Contacts Over Code Matters
Effective immediately there will be no personal contacts made with any residents concerning any
code violations after 2100 hours or 9:00 pm. Any situations encountered that need to be dealt
with will be written up and left with the administrative sergeant to give out to the next oncoming
community service officer the follow day.
• SK:kh
•
C.l- 97.mem
ONLY CFjyr
BROOKLYN CENTER
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager Michael McCauley
FROM: Chief Scott Kline
DATE: December 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Department Response to Crack Houses
At the present time, we have a two - pronged approached used to eliminate crack houses found in
rental properties in the City of Brooklyn Center. In the first instance, Inv. Bob Dirks, who is
assigned to the Anoka- Hennepin Drug Task Force, would be the person assigned to handle any
report of a crack house and would follow the case all the way through to the county attorney's
office where they would deal with the issue of notifying the rental owner to begiri an unlawful
• detainer procedure against the offending dwelling unit.
In the second instance, the crime prevention division who works in close concert with the
Apartment Rental Managers Association, or ARM of Brooklyn Center, would notify the owner
as soon as an incident of this type came out on the printed summaries of activities to rental
dwelling units within the city. Through the close working relationship between the crime
prevention sergeant and the rental management people, there would also be quick response to
remove these people from the complex and eliminate the problem from the city of Brooklyn
Center.
Up to this time, there has not been a single instance where our normal contacts with the rental
people have not led to immediate removal of problem tenants who are involved in drug
trafficking of any kind, and I don't visualize this situation changing any in the future since the
managers also understand that it is in their best interests to get these people out of their
complexes as quickly as possible to prevent good tenants from leaving due to criminal activity.
SK:kh
•
crackhs.mem
I 470 Pillsbury Center
K enne dy ` 200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337 -9300 telephone
(612) 337 -9310 fax
e -mail: attysCa graven.com
CHARTERED
CHARLES L. LEFEVERE
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215
December 23, 1996
Mr. Mike McCauley
City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center MN 55430
RE: Control of "Crack Houses"
Dear Mike:
The City Council has requested that we review the options which the City has to control "crack
houses ". A memorandum on the subject is attached. It appears that state law and City
ordinances provide substantial control over such activities.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLLah
•
.. =t.0
E2 ?_-.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charlie
FROM: Dan
DATE: December 21, 1996
RE: Landlord/Tenant Regulation
You asked for information concerning the city of Brooklyn Center's options in dealing with the
problem of rental properties being used for drug dealing. The city has several alternatives.
First, state law provides for a significant county role in this matter. When controlled substances
as defined by state law are distributed, manufactured, or acquired on residential rental property
and are seized pursuant to a lawful arrest or search, the county attorney is required to notify the
• landlord. Minn. Stat. § 609.5317, subd. 1(a) (1996). Within 15 days after receiving notice, the
landlord must bring an unlawful detainer action against the residents of the property, or assign
to the county attorney the right to bring such an action. Id., subd. 1(b) (1996). If a second
occurrence takes place "on any residential rental property owned by the same landlord in the
same county and involving the same tenant, and within one year after notice of the first
occurrence, the property is subject to forfeiture ... unless an unlawful detainer action has been
commenced ... or ... was assigned to the county attorney.... Id., subd. 1(c) (1996).
There are some limitations on this statute, namely that no unlawful detainer action shall be
brought if the retail value of the controlled substance is less than $100, and no forfeiture is
contemplated unless the retail value of the controlled substance is less than $1,000. Id., subd.
4 (1996). Moreover, the statutory language is not entirely clear. For example, it is not apparent
which property is to be forfeited upon a second occurrence if the arrests or seizures take place
at different locations, or what happens if one of the seizures is of controlled substances worth
more than $1,000 while one is of a lesser amount. Nevertheless, this statute provides a powerful
tool against the use of residential rental property as a location for dealing drugs.
Second, state law allows a court, upon petition by a city attorney, county attorney, or the attorney
general, to issue an order of abatement that will close a building or portion thereof for one year
upon proof of that acts constituting a public nuisance have taken place at that location. Minn.
DJG115265
BR291 -4 1
Stat. § 617.83 (1996).' This scheme has been upheld against a challenge on due process and
takings grounds. City of Minneapolis v. Fisher 504 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. App. 1993), pet. for rev.
• denied (Minn. Sept. 30, 1993)
For purposes of this statute, a public nuisance includes three or more misdemeanor convictions,
or two convictions if one is a gross misdemeanor or felony, for acts including the "unlawful sale
or possession of controlled substances committed within the building." Minn. Stat. § 617.81,
subd. 2(4) (1996). In addition, a public nuisance can be proved by the existence of three lawful
seizures of or arrests for possession or sale of controlled substances within a two month period.
Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2 (1996). The seizures must occur within the building, while the
arrests must occur within the building or on the building's curtilage. Id. The owner of a rental
property may avoid the abatement order by cancelling the lease of the tenant whose actions gave
rise to the nuisance finding, and such cancellation of the lease is explicitly permitted under these
circumstances. Minn. Stat. § 617.85 (1996).
Third, the city could exercise its ability to regulate rental residential property. The city already
has in place a provision for licensing residential rental properties. Brooklyn Center City Code,
Section 12 -901. These licenses may be revoked if the unlawful possession, delivery, or purchase
of a controlled substance takes place upon the premises. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-
911(1)(b). The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently upheld a similar Minneapolis ordinance
against a claim that revocation of a rental residential license due to drug dealing and "associated
violence" on the rental premises constituted a taking. Zeman v. Cif of Minneapolis 552 N.W.2d
548, 549 -50 (Minn. 1996).
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information, articularl
P Y
about the procedures that must be followed with regard to any of these options.
' At least until August 1, 1999, an action may also be brought by a neighbor of the offending
• property, or a neighborhood organization in the jurisdiction of the property. Minn. Stat. §§
617.88 -89 (1996).
DJG115265
BR291 -4 2
3 If'
City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Councilmember Kathleen Carmody
Councilmember Debra Hilstrom
Councilmember Kay Lasman
Councilmember Robert Peppe
FROM:
Myrna Kragness, Mayor
DATE: January 9, 1997
SUBJECT: Mayoral Appointment: Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force
Y
PP P P
Following is a list of persons I recommend to serve on the City's Comprehensive Plan Update Task
Force:
City Council Members
Kathleen Carmody Debra Hilstrom
Myrna Kragness Kay Lasman
Robert Peppe
Planning Commission Sion Members:
Graydon Boeck Donald Booth
Mark Holmes Rex Newman
Dianne Reem Brian Walker
Tim Willson
Jerry Blarney 7136 Willow Lane North
Maurice Britts 4819 Lakeview Avenue North
Dr. Jim Cole Associate Superintendent/Anoka- Hennepin
Tom Donaldson St. Alphonsus Catholic Church
Dale Greenwald Cass Screw Company
Lisa Hunter Osseo Area School District No. 279
Toni Johns Brooklyn Center Ind. School Dist. No. 286
Tom Kouri Northeast Neighborhood, 6416 Willow Lane North
Tony Kuefler Central Neighborhood, 5843 Abbott Avenue North
Frank Slawson American Express Financial Advisors
Ron Thomas Brookdale
Dr. Carroll Vomhof Robbinsdale Area School District No. 281
1 ask for Council confirmation of these appointments to the City's Comprehensive Plan Update Task
Force. Included is a memorandum which lists all persons who expressed interest in the task force.
•
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk �WJA fZ�
DATE: January 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Task Force
On November 14, 1996, you sent a letter to a number of people inquiring of their interest and
participation on a task force to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. Following is a list of
names from persons who either called or wrote to request being part of the task force.
Jerry Blarney 7136 Willow Lane North
Maurice Britts 4819 Lakeview Avenue North
Dr. Jim Cole Associate Superintendent/Anoka- Hennepin
Brian Danielson West Central Neighborhood, 6223 Major Avenue North
Ben Davidson Southeast Neighborhood, 5800 Girard Avenue North
• Tom Donaldson St. Alphonsus Catholic Church
Judy Fornara Spiritual Life Church
Dale Greenwald Cass Screw Company
Bill Hawes Southwest Nieghborhood, 3612 53rd Avenue North
Lisa Hunter Osseo Area School District No. 279
Toni Johns Brooklyn Center Ind. School Dist. No. 286
Tom Kouri Northeast Neighborhood, 6416 Willow Lane North
Tony Kuefler Central Neighborhood, 5843 Abbott Avenue North
Keith Moberg Robbinsdale School Board Member
Frank Slawson American Express Financial Advisors
Mike Snelson Northeast Neighborhood, 7207 Emerson Avenue North
Bob Spies Southwest Neighborhood, 4715 Twin Lake Avenue North
Mark Stromberg Brookdale Covenant Church
Ron Thomas Brookdale
Dr. Carroll Vomhof Robbinsdale Area School District No. 281
•
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 - 2199 "• City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunities Employer