HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 03-02 CCP Work Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MARCH 2, 1993
7 p.m.
Council Work Session
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Preliminary Discussion on Street Improvements
4. Redevelopment Proposals for 63rd and 69th Avenues and Brooklyn Boulevard
5. Financial and Administrative Issues - Benchmarking
6. Ethics Board
7. Review of Attorney's Fees
8. Adjournment
i
HISTORY OF SE NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
October 21, 1991 City Council receives a report from the Director of Public Works regarding
street maintenance and improvement policies. This report noted that:
• Brooklyn Center has historically provided a high level of street
maintenance.
• The cost f n o street maintenance is increasing s the streets become
g
older (the average street in Brooklyn Center is about 30 years old).
• Lack of curb and gutter on residential streets hastens deterioration,
increases maintenance costs, and creates an 'unkempt appearance.'
Staff recommendations in the report included:
• For the immediate future, street maintenance funding be sufficient to
assure an acceptable level of maintenance on all streets.
• That a Pavement Management Program (PMP) software program be
purchased to provide detailed, objective, technical data to assist in
making street maintenance and replacement decisions.
• Consideration should be given to initiating a street improvement
program.
• A citizen participation process should be established.
• In the long term, street maintenance and improvement policies and
programs should be based on both technical data and citizen
participation.
ation. P
Council discussion at the meeting included comments:
• It is important to aggressively pursue all avenues of financing. We
need to determine what residents feel is a "fair amount" to be
assessed. We need to look at the needs of low and fixed income
residents.
• We need to look at a program which addresses needs for the entire
City: a 20 year program.
• We should get started as soon as possible. The first streets to be
improved should be in a highly visible area, in the Southeast
neighborhood to generate resident enthusiasm.
• We need to develop promotional information regarding improvement
proposals, costs, and financing options. Information on improvements
and the best financing alternatives should be included in the local
papers. We should invite residents to an open forum to determine
citizen interest.
The Council directed staff to review the concept with the Earle Brown
Neighborhood Committee, including information regarding costs and financing
options.
February 26, 1993
Page 2
November 14, 1991 First meeting with the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee, to
discuss the concept of street improvements in the Southeast neighborhood.
Comments from the EBNAC include:
• There is a great deal of concern regarding how the program would be
"sold" (remembering home meetings regarding installation of sanitary
sewers in the area).
• Improved street lighting is a high priority.
• How much are people willing to pay per month. They don't have a
good handle. $10 per month doesn't seem like very much. Should it
be more? Less? Approve of concept of "assessment stabilization".
• We need to get real estate agents involved, or appraisers, to give
opinions regarding increased home value and salability.
August 17, 1992 The concept of a proposed neighborhood street improvement program was
presented to and discussed by the EDA. The EDA authorized staff to bring
the discussion to the Council at its next meeting, for referral to the Earle
Brown Neighborhood Advisory Commission.
August 24, 1992 The Council adopted a resolution which authorized the Preliminary
Consideration of a Possible Neighborhood Street Improvement Program.
Staff were directed to meet with residents in the Earle Brown neighborhood.
September 17, 1992 Meeting with the "extended" EBNAC. About 35 people attended the meeting.
The staff presentation stated that the objectives of any project would be:
• Lowest long term costs to keep streets in an acceptable condition.
• Neighborhood enhancements which improve property values.
The presentation covered preliminary cost estimates, includin g estimated
special assessment costs; the types of improvements to be considered; the
proposed Assessment Stabilization program; and a tentative calendar.
Of particular concern to the residents were:
• Special assessment olio
p policy.
• Amount of public input into the process.
• Ensuring that any project comprehensively address concerns:
Orangeburg services; drainage; etc.
The EBNAC agreed to meet again in two weeks to make specific
recommendations to the City Council.
February 26, 1993
Page 3
October 1, 1992 EBNAC reconvened, and reviewed various information. The Committee
voted to recommend to the Council that:
• The City proceed with a feasibility study.
• An independent appraiser be hired to evaluate the benefits received
from such a program.
• The Assessment Stabilization program be formalized.
• That the area to be studied be limited to the area south of 55th
Avenue.
• That the streets abutting properties which had recently been assessed
for alley improvements be excluded from consideration.
Based on these recommendations, and the Council direction in August, staff began the staff work
necessary for development of a feasibility study.
October 13, 1992 The Council reviewed the EBNAC recommendations. At this meeting the
Council authorized certain expenditures for consultant work.
• Pavement codings and pavement design analysis from Braun Intertec
was approved at a cost of $6,200.
• Sewer televising for sanitary and storm sewers was authorized, at a
cost of about $5,000.
February 22, 1993 The City Council received a progress report on the feasibility study.
Accompanying that report was a proposal to, in accordance with the
recommendation from EBNAC, hire an independent appraiser to assess the
value added from such an improvement.
The Council approved hiring the appraiser, contingent on: 1) the
recommendation of EBNAC at its meeting on February 23; and 2) specific
information from the appraiser regarding the number of proposals (the
proposal stated "4-6 appraisals ") and the cost (the proposal was not to exceed
$6,000).
February 23, 1993 Meeting with the "extended" EBNAC. About 15 people were in attendance.
The results of the feasibility study were presented, including the extent of
improvements; costs; and a revised calendar. The area studied was divided
into an Area A and an Area B. Each area represented the maximum area
which could be completed as a pilot project. Information regarding special
assessments and the Assessment Stabilization program was again presented.
Some specific concerns raised by EBNAC or guests included:
• Concern regarding exclusion of streets with properties abutting
February 26, 1993
Page 4
recently approved alleys. The group was reminded that these streets
were excluded at EBNAC's recommendation.
• Continuing concern regarding replacement of sanitary sewer services,
primarily Orangeburg services. Staff assured the audience that it
would develop a plan that would address this issue in such a way that
property owners with such services could choose if they wanted them
replaced, and the City would negotiate as low a cost as possible. This
service replacement cost could then be added to the property's
assessment, to be financed over the term of the assessment.
• Concern about the level of street lighting in the area. The audience
agreed that additional street lighting would help the neighborhood feel
safer.
• Concern that information regarding this study, and the possibility of a
wider- ranging program should be made available to all residents. If
this is a continuing program, then the decisions made here could
impact many residents.
EBNAC made the following recommendations to the Council:
• The City should continue consideration of a Neighborhood Street
improvement program.
• Rather than select Area A or Area B, EBNAC recommended that the
feasibility report, and public informational meetings and the public
hearing cover the entire area. Selection of an area should occur
following the public hearing.
• The Council should approve the development of an Assessment
Stabilization program.
• The City should move forward on hiring an appraiser.
• Staff should prepare information regarding upgrading street lighting,
for review by the Council.
February 24, 1993 Staff met with the appraiser, Mr. Brad Bjorklund. On review of the types of
properties, he recommended appraising five properties. His fee for these five
properties would be $5,200. The City Manager polled the Council, and was
authorized to proceed with 5 appraisals.
March 2, 1993. Council work session.
February 26, 1993
mc
_
Mom NO NoWN _w w� w_ �� S O
_
__ __ �� __ � ' s MISM NOW ��IIIII tip
NO MO mg
_12 /w_ �■ " AIL goo
�■ _ICI ���` ii
Ml MISM
mom
11IIIIIIUt��i� •• ��• ��O �� ■ �� ■' -
� u; Ili =�IYt Iii �� � =� .'��� =- -- =° �■ � i� I• ®l
I
i j
S A
AREA A
I
.o•
6 � 0 12 ..
:: :::.:: =� r �® ® ilk �� ..,.,, �� __.. ��■ 94 1 I�►
■r■ ■� �■■ fir■ �® �® ■ rir v r
VE
oil It L j
�■■r �■r■ ■ice 1 .... ■� ■�■r
_ ■ ■■ �■ ■� i !i� ism G i:� .� i� � � � . _
.■ ■ ®■ ■�a� i ® i s� r� L� ice: ��
- _■ ®■ ■r�, i _i iY fig. �i �� r ® - .
` .. �� �� ■® i � ire r �� �� -� -.
® 1
�i i i i i r err i �► ■ . " ■ .: ... ns � � '. - - -
ii ii ice. �� ®►� ,:' -
nir F�
`�� .
SOUTHEAST A
AREA A
I
I
...
..
IN.1 r
LVJL
.- -- -- ■ ■, � ,• �� ■ �I� •- �� ___ �
, 1� _ ii �i ii ■r �-® �:: � _- %j ___:
ol
LL
A ON
__ •� r rrr ■■ ■I rr � ®® .. .._
i . u ..rr1l.�ir ...��..� ill N , ►�
■ ■"r ' ®w w.I r.ri .rrr. �� ►♦ ' ►�, �, 1
c: y..a.,:� ,•,�:..� rr+ rrrir rrw� I
�� � � � � � � � �® • �i`ii:i i�'�'1•.1:�i`L�•� �`/�'/I�I�.Ia•.�,,j ►� �,� ' ' ,��� ��� _
• � � _� _� _� rrr _ � �rl � � ►�� ►� �� - ►�,� �,�:
rrr -.� ®_ '�\
11 12
7711 11 .11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11,11
CURB & GUTTER, STREET RESURFACING
I
SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA
AREA A
I
.0•
Frl
�' ii ■ i:i ■■ �i' : ® ®r yr EQ Pi r
PEI
cr
a®� •.tir r.r � r r.r �rrrr �� ®�'1�
�■ ��1 r� � .rri rw• �nr rr.• rrr r r.ra, ba •�
•
■ CL
F IF
STORM SEWER REPAIR & REPLACEMENT
I
SOUTHEAST 9l"UDY AREA
AREA A
...
6 9 0 12
,•ter.
j ■ �■■ �� �� � �.. ■� ■ ■i■ ■nom ■r. _ ■�
r� rr �� �•1- ��I.rr r� .Y
■ � � YYY rii. !�r �� �i! � w.•i �� �i >�- Vii' +
", � `� mil iii rr�1•��� -••�- �1�• • ••
� �� �f.1 �� arm w r.�r wJ— s4 s —•• ■•QS-
l7f %
_�f I I I I
Lim
I I N_
��
SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT
® rs
NOW
pm
ZZ
T s c�i i i �I ,r ■�
� � .._ • �� iii ■I■ ■ � ii: �� ■AID �� �� �� �1
T.
• • • •
rl
I
SOUTHEASTITUDY AREA
I
AR r
I
...
• 4 6 12 00
INJ ■ A
•1
river .��. rr� ®�■�� :."'." ■ CC rr w - 11EE3
EJEA
VE
ol
CD cc
� ♦, �•�. .f�. awe � l��i SSA �.,. z ��i.. �. ♦ � .•�'-S�iS ♦ � ♦ ice ♦i��� : ; � � ® � ■ 1
•11124 /rr.
CUR •, GUTTER, STREET RESURFACING
I
r
■ w '1 �
�Ir
� ■ ■ '�:■ ■�t' � •^•. � +� ""' � � w w r � �� ■ ■ � _
MM
_ - 111 � _ � � � ■ ■! .r. -.. ® -� �
on
I
SOUT1JEAs"rlTUUY AREA
AREA B
I
...
..
W f H LAVt, - - -
' ..� ..■� ..® ■
r\1
L3 U
Ul
Ea
_� .�� ... Ems. � ®® ■1■ �� ■ ■ ■I■ ■■ % � ®� �= ■: r \
H
E+1��61Lli!'i�����i r r.� rri i.r�•ir.r ..r�,, r ■ .r
�41� �i� ►� �i i!
� 2 ` ��.
- 1 F
IFIFFIFFIFT if
SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT
�' • PROPOSED
STREET IMPROVEMENT
• PROPOSED 31' STREET WITH CURB
& GUTTER
of UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION
of EXISTING FLAT GRADES
• LOGAN & DUPONT AVENUES
✓ ON STREET PARKING
✓ ON STREET TRAIL
• PROPOSED PAVING SECTION
• COSTS NOT INCLUDED
✓TREE PLANTINGS
of LANDSCAPING
d ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING
of OVERHEAD POWER LINE REMOVAL
• FUNDING
J GENERAL REVENUES
V SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
d STATE AID FUNDS
PROPOSED •
STORM SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS
• REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION
OF LINES &INLETS
• EXCLUSION OF 55TH AVE FROM �
STUDY
• FUNDING
*/PUBLIC UTILITY STORM DRAINAGE FUND
PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS
• TELEVISED INSPECTION RESULTS
• REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR:
✓ SEWER MAINS
✓ SERVICE WYE CONNECTION
✓ SERVICE BETWEEN THE MAIN AND
. PROPERTY LINE
• NEW SEWERS &SERVICE
INSTALLATIONS
✓ GASKETED, PVC (PLASTIC) PIPE
✓ DECREASE GROUNDWATER INFILTRATION
✓ DECREASE INVASION OF TREE ROOTS
d MAINTENANCE REQUIRED BY CITY
✓ "ORANGEBURG" SERVICES
• FUNDING
./ PUBLIC UTILITY SANITARY SEWER FUND
✓ POSSIBILITY OF CITY CONTRACTOR
PERFORMING PRIVATE PROPERTY
• REPLACEMENT
i
PROPOSED �
WATERMAIN
IMPROVEMENTS
• REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR:
J EXISTING WATER MAINS
./ FITTINGS
./ VALVES
• PROPOSED REPLACEMENTS
INCLUDE:
✓ WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS AT THE
MAIN
V WATER SERVICE LINE BETWEEN THE MAIN
AND PROPERTY LINE
d CURB STOP (WATER SHUT -OFF)
• PROPOSED INSTALLATIONS AND
SERVICES
✓ DUCTILE IRON PIPE
✓ COPPER PIPE
• FUNDING .
✓ PUBLIC UTILITY WATER FUND
SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
18— Feb -93
AREA A
E: \ENG \PROJECT\AREAA
STREET DESIGNATION STIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS>
STREET STORM SANITARY WATEAMRN TOTAL ESTIMATE
4TH STREET NO. $105,600.69 $5,000.00 $110,600.69
CAMDEN AVE. NO. $108,268.69 $23,896.00 $29,492.00 $45,627.75 $207,284.44
BRYANT AVE. NO. $107,808.69 $20,220.00 $23,908.00 $27,155.00 $179,091.69
COLFAX AVE. NO. $94,292.50 $20,502.50 $37,497.50 $47,076.00 $199,368.50
DUPONT AVE. NO. $108,799.69 $5,375.00 $36,564.00 $48,679.50 $199,418.19
EMERSON AVE. NO. $48,942.50 $2,560.00 $16,250.00 $24,920.00 $92,672.50
FREMONT AVE. NO. $44,041.50 $4,870.00 $20,968.50 $25,325.00 $95,205.00
GIRARD AVE. NO. $42,090.00 $7,047.00 $20,516.00 $23,267.50 $92,920.50
54TH AVE. NO. (NUMB TO DUPONT) $71,858.25 $71,858.25
SUBTOTAL $731,702.51 $89 $185,196.00 ' $242.050.75 1' 248 419.76'
CONSTRUC CONTINGENCY 20% $146,340.50 $17,894.10 $37,039.20 $48,410.15 $249
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $878,043.01 $107.364.60 $222.235-20 $290,460.90 1; 498 103.71
LEGAL ADMIN. , ENGINEERING 13% 114 145.59 $13,957.40 $28,890.58 $37,759.92 $194,753.48
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 1$992.188, !.00 251 125.78 328 220.82 1.
SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY °3;a�'
� L �- ��� �� � 18— Feb -93
AREA B
E:\ENG\PROJECT\AREAB
STREET DESIGNATION STIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS;
STREET STORM SANITARY WATERMAR EST IMATE'.
LOGAN AVE. NO. $128,315.00 $11,869.00 $26,578.50 $29,441.25 $196,203.75
KNOX AVE. NO. $81,276.75 $17,420.00 $35,677.00 $44,508.25 $178,882.00
JAMES AVE. NO. $120,236.75 $10,158.00 $33,278.00 $1,942.00 $165,614.75
IRVING AVE. NO. $93,045.50 $15,454.00 $24,490.00 $47,168.25 $180,157.75
54TH AVE. NO. (LOGAN TO NUMB) $64,511.25 $64,511.25
54TH AVE. NO. (HUMB. TO DUPONT) $71,858.25 $71,858.25
EMERSON AVE. NO. $48,942.50 $2,560.00 $16,250.00 $24,920.00 $92,672.50
FREMONT AVE. NO. $44,041.50 $4,870.00 $20,968.50 $25,325.00 $95,205.00
GIRARD AVE. NO. $42,090.00 $7,047.00 $20,516.00 $23,267.50 $92,920.50
SUBTOTAL $694,317.50 :$69 378 .00' $177,758.00`$196,572.25' $1,138'' _025.75
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 20% $138,863.50 $13 $35 $39 $227
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $833.181.00 63 253.60 213 309,60` $235.886.70 $1,365
LEGAL ADMIN. , ENGINEERING 13% i08 313.53 $27 30.25 30 665.27 $177,532,02
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT 'COST $941,494.531 $94.010-01 ' 241 A39.85 1;$Zbfjbbl.971 $1543
I
i
Maximum Spacing Recommendations Lantern Style
Area of Use
Wattage /Pole Height Recreation Residential Commercial
70W /15FT 50FT 25FT 20FT`
100W /15FT 60FT 40FT 25FT'
r...
150W/15FT 75FT -.2.� ., ..�: ._ ........... 50FT „ 30FT
Use different wattage /Pole combinations or fixture types for better lighting
Denotes best recommendation
I
Price List
Light Cost
Designer
70 Watt Acorn $687.00
100 Watt Acorn 669.00
150 Watt Acorn 670.00
100 Watt Lantern 945.00
Pole
15 FT. Fiberglass 1,354.00
Mastarm
2 Fixture 364.00
Base
Pre -cast Concrete 550.00
Screw -In 6" 332.00
Screw -In 8"
Polycarbonate lenses are available in
both clear and white.
The fixture is also available without
the spikes.
�.� Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Maximum Spacing Recommendations Shoebox Style
Area of Use
Wattage /Pole Height Residential Commercial Major Roadway
100W /25FT 170FT 130FT 90FT
100W /30FT 190FT 120FT 7 7 . mo w 80FT
150W /25FT 20OFT* 190FT* 150FT
150W /30FT 20OFT 20OFT 130FT
250W/25FT 225FT* 20OFT* 20OFT*
250W /30FT 225FT 225FT 190FT
250W/35FT 300FT* 250FT 175FT
*Use different wattage /Pole combinations or fixture types for better lighting
Denotes best recommendation
Price List
Light Cost
Shoebox
100 Watt $256.00
150 Watt 268.00
250 Watt 307.00
Pole
25 FT. Fiberglass
25 FT. Alumnium 1,108.00
25 FT. Wood 652.00
30 FT. Fiberglass 555.00
30 FT. Alumnium 1,120.00
30 FT. Wood 652.00
Mastarm - Single
2 1/2 FT. 77.00
6 FT. 90.00
Mastarm -Hub Mounted
4 FT. Single 148.00
6 FT. Single 173.00
4 FT. Double 237.00
6 FT. Double 286.00
Base
Pre -cast Concrete 550.00
Screw -In 6" 332.00
Screw -In 8" -
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
STREET LIGHTING
LANTERN STYLE `
• Must be City-owned
• Installation /purchase price of $2,356/ea.
SHOEBOX STYLE
• Can be City -owned or leased
• Installation /purchase price of $1,232/ea.
—or—
Can be leased for $17.10 per fixture per month
AREA A
• Lantern Style — Purchase Cost $437,980
✓ Proposed Special Assessment $1,533 -> $3,713
✓ General Fund increase of $8,160 yearly or 6.3%
increase
Shoebox Style Purchase Cost $ 70,470
✓ Proposed Special Assessment $1,523 -> $1,875
✓ General Fund increase of $781 yearly or 0.6%
increase —or—
Lease — increase of $8,400 yearly or 6.5% increase
AREA B
• Lantern Style — Purchase Cost $370,600
✓ Proposed Special Assessment $1,523 --> $3,641
✓ General Fund increase of $7,210 yearly or 5.6%
increase
• Shoebox Style — Purchase Cost $ 59,630
✓
Proposed Special Assessment 1 -�
p p t $ ,523 $1,864
1 ✓ General Fund Increase of $972 yearly or 0.8%
increase —or—
Lease — increase of $7,230 yearly or 5.6% increase
Funding Sources For Proposed
Improvements
Water Utility
19%
Bonds/ State
Aid
S • 41 non
anitary Sewer ����,��,,;I,��l �� ,��
i � I lls ill i y l �V ijr.
•
Utility
Ni
15%
Vili �N
(I Ilinl
Storm Assessment
Drainage Special
-• • Assessments Stabilization
� Utility o 3
7% 15
PROPOSED PROJECT FINANCING
nnri lumA nu
F R L L I ITI I IIR
• Utility costs to be paid from the respective utility
construction funds
• Street construction to be funded from Special
Assessment Bonds, to be financed 30% from
special assessments and 70% from general
revenues, and from Municipal State Aid funds for
improvements to designated State Aid routes
✓ Estimated special assessment per residential
property = $1,523 (monthly payment of
about $23 per month the first year, reducing
to about $14 per month in the tenth year)
✓ Estimated additional ro ert tax payment to
p p Y p Y
finance the bonds:
If your total property tax payment now is
$1,000 - then the additional tax payment
would be $4.48
If your total property tax payment now is
$1,500 - then the additional tax payment
would be $6.73
• The estimated cost of the first year of the
assessment stabilization program would be
$40,000- 70,000, depending on the option chosen.
It is proposed to fund this first year's program
from the unrestricted municipal state aid funds,
until a more permanent source of funding could be
found.
i
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
• Existing policy for street improvements:
✓ Special assessments recapture 1/3 cost of
street construction
✓ Made on a per unit basis
• Concerns with showing increase in value
• Questions of fairness
✓ Should assessments be made on a per
unit basis or on a front footage basis, or
on some other basis
Per unit: $1,523 per buildable lot
Per front foot: 40 foot lot = $1,040
75 foot lot = $1,950
✓ How to reduce the impact of special
assessments on low and fixed income
home owners
"Assessment Stabilization Program"
• Alb • •• ••• �i�
dO •
•
•
•
•
•
•
%::ii
•
: %: '% : .:;%:i, + ••, ' !,• %$ ?.'•i::; + iii':' • .•...
err ?r +... + •: {f /.
..f.. n/ .i...... :ff... :;:�� "::, %��: {:::: :: :.: %::{ . +iv •.S'•:
. f.�.
..r
•
Ff
r�
? .r
?..r•
/Y
•; •rf +vr•
:..•i•• •,.c
:.i . /. /. ..:.......±±.... .... 3:•;•N J•x:: r::::::.. {v:•fFS.... s ...• +.•j::: •:. ::.:..:••:::: r. r:::..;. }:: :: ...};v'
see Go* es 000
PROPOSED
"ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION"
PROGRAM
Concept: Owners pay a portion of the special assessment on a
sliding scale based on income. The City "buys down"
the remainder by paying the property owner a lump
sum. Two options have been suggested:
OPT /ON A: City pays a prorated amount for all households with
incomes less than the HUD moderate income limit
($30,900 for two person household in 1992). Would
affect an estimated 60 families.
OPT /ON B: City pays 100% for all households less than the low
limit ($20,400 for two person household in 1992) (an
estimated 30 families) and a prorated amount for
households with incomes within the moderate income
range ($20,400 to $30,900) (an estimated 30
families).
EXAMPLE FOR TWO PERSON HOUSEHOLDS:
OPTION A OPTION B
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME PROPERTY* CITY* * PROPERTY* CITY**
OWNER SHARE OWNER SHARE
SHARE SHARE
$10,000 $501 $1,022 $0 $1,523
$ 15,000 $751 $772 $0 $1,523
$20,000 $1,002 $521 $109 $1,414
$25,000 $1,252 $271 $789 $734
$30,000 $1,503 1 $20 $1,469 $54
$35,000 $1,523 $0 $1 $0
* The PROPERTY OWNER SHARE is the amount the property
owner would pay.
* * The CITY SHARE is the amount the City would "buy down."
TYPES OF PROPERTIES TO BE APPRAISED
•
Lot that backs up to Bellvue Park
• A 40 foot lot
• A property abutting a recently paved alley
• A 75 foot lot
• A lot across from the freeway
EBNAC RECOMENDATIONS
• Continue consideration
of a Neighborhood Street
Improvement program.
• Rather than select Area A or Area B, the feasibility
report, and public informational meetings and the
public hearing should cover the entire area.
Selection of an area should occur following the
public hearing.
• The Council should direct the development of an
Assessment Stabilization program.
• The City should move forward on hiring an
appraiser.
• Staff should prepare information regarding
upgrading street lighting , for review by the
Council.
SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Staff Meeting with Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee ...... February 23, 1993
City Council Work Session ... ............................... March 2, 1993
City Council Receives Feasibility Report, Orders Public Hearing,
directs Staff to hold Informational Meeting With Residents of Area ......... March 22, 1993
Publication of Public Hearing, Notices Mailed to Affected Properties ....... March 31, 1993
Staff Conducts Neighborhood Meeting ..................... Week of April 5, 1993
Public Hearing — Special Council Meeting .......... .........AP ril 20 or 21, 1993
Council Approval of Project and Order the Preparation
of Plans and Specifications ... ............................... April 26, 1993
City Council Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Direct
Advertisement for Bids ...... ............................... May 24, 1993
City Council Acceptance of Bid and Award of Contract ................ June 28, 1993
Construction Begins .......... ............................... July, 1993
Construction Completed ............... . .......October, 1993
Assessment Hearing ...... ............................... September, 1994
Revised 02/25/93
IMMEDIATE DIRECTION t
NEEDED BY STAFF
• SELECTION OF AREAS
✓ AORB
J BOTH
• SHOULD PROPOSED PROGRAM
INCLUDE:
of TREE PLANTINGS
✓ LANDSCAPE
of ORNAMENTAL LIGHTING
./ REMOVAL OF OVERHEAD POWER LINES
• PROPOSED WIDENING OF LOGAN
AND DUPONT AVENUES
• ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT
STABILIZATION PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development
DATE: February 26, 1993
SUBJECT: Phillips 66 Development Proposal and Brooklyn Boulevard) and
Conoco's 63rd Avenue Development
Tuesday evening, I would like to discuss the Phillips 66 development for 69th and Brooklyn
Boulevard. As most of the councilmembers are aware, the Phillips proposal has been on the
City's table in one manner or another for over two (2) years.
At the November 9 and 23 Council meetings, the City took a number of actions related to
this project (see attached). First, the preliminary plat was approved. The approval of the
plat eliminated the problem of a service station abutting a residential property. However,
when Phillips replatted, they dedicated land along 69th Avenue for future road expansion.
As a result of the land dedication they were not able to meet the greenstrip requirement along
Brooklyn Boulevard even though the landscaping for the entire site exceeds our ordinance
requirements.
Phillips asked for a variance from the greenstrip requirements, which in turn was denied.
The Council entertained an amendment to Chapter 35 but in turn referred it back to the
1 i
P ann ng Commission. The Planning Commission in turn is waiting for the Brooklyn
Boulevard Study to be completed. On the 8th of March the study will be presented formally
to the Council for acceptance. The plan states that the City should "administer codes and
ordinances that protect existing interests while being flexible enough to accommodate new
developments." It also suggests an amendment to our ordinance relative to the abutment of
C -1 and C -2 uses to residential areas. In essence, it suggests performance standards as
opposed to our current outright denial. Had this been in place originally, Phillips would not
have replatted and would have been able to meet our current ordinance requirements.
I have received a list of items the Council wants to consider as a step towards
implementation of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. The Community Development Department
will be addressing each of the issues as soon as possible so the Council can address the
future development of the Boulevard. In conjunction with the items the Council has
requested further information on, I would like to explore the concept of an overlay ordinance
addressing the issues raised in the study (i.e., an appearance code). The original ordinance
remains intact and a developer could build under those requirements or they could operate
under the overlay which has more flexibility. Such an ordinance provides the Council with
the ability to have greater impact on the overall appearance of the property.
Phillips Development Proposal
Memorandum, Page 2
February 26, 1993
I have been told that Phillips is going to abandon the 69th site if the City's concerns cannot
be resolved on the 8th of March. Since it has been over two years, I believe it. On the 8th,
Phillips would like the City to reconsider its request for a variance. Since the Council has
held the public hearing already, you do not have to reopen the public hearing. However, the
Council might wish us to contact those individuals who were present at the public hearing
and make them aware of the possible rehearing of the variance application. It will require a
majority vote to approve the variance. If the Council is inclined to proceed with the variance
it would do so with the understanding that the obstacles to its approval will be addressed.
Tuesday we will discuss the options you have. Tim Griffin feels that Phillips has made a
number of concessions (I'll review them Tuesday) and the proposal as currently submitted is
consistent with the Brooklyn Boulevard Plan. Tuesday I would like some indication from the
Council on their preferences as to which direction they would like us to go.
Many of the same issues apply to a Conoco proposal on 63rd. The primary question is the
C -1 /C -2 abutment issue to R -1.
4
Member Celia Scott introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -267
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 92003 was
submitted by Phillips 66 Company originally requesting a variance
from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance at 6901 Brooklyn
Boulevard to allow a building setback of 28' rather than 50' from
the Brooklyn Boulevard right -of -way; and
WHEREAS, Section 35 -240, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance
states that a variance may be granted by the City Council only
after demonstration by evidence that all of the four standards for
a variance listed in said section of the ordinance are met; and
WHEREAS, said application was first considered by the Planning
Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in conjunction with two
other applications (92001 and 92002), also submitted by Phillips 66
Company at a duly called regular meeting on January 16, 1992 at
which a public hearing was held, testimony regarding the
applications was received, deliberation of the matters was
undertaken, and a decision to table the three applications was
made; and
WHEREAS, the applications were reconsidered by the Planning
Commission on January 0 1992 at which
y time the Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -1 recommending. denial of
application No. 92001 and 92003 on the.grounds that the Standards
for a Variance contained in Section 35 -240, Subdivision 2 have not
been met and that the site and building plans cannot be approved
without a concurrent approval of the setback variance; and
WHEREAS, this application along with Application Nos. 92001
and 92002 were referred to the City Council for consideration at
their February 10, 1992 meeting at which time the applications were
reviewed, testimony was received, the matters were deliberated and
the City Council decided to table the applications, with the
concurrence of the applicant, to study possible ordinance
amendments which might address redevelopment on Brooklyn Boulevard;
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the tabling of this application the
City Council retained the consulting firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow and
Uban, Inc. to undertake a study of Brooklyn Boulevard with a high
priority given to the development proposal for 6901 Brooklyn
Boulevard; and
I
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -267
WHEREAS, the applicant revised its plans under Application
Nos. 92001 and 92003 by rearranging the building location (92001)
and requesting a variance from Section 35 -700 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a greenstrip less than 15' from the Brooklyn
Boulevard and 69th Avenue right -of -ways; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reconsidered this application
at its duly called meeting on October 29, 1992 and, following a
public hearing at which testimony was taken, consideration of the
revised plans was given and a review of the Standards for a
Variance contained in Section 35 -240, Subdivision 2 was made,
recommended denial of Application No. 92003 on the grounds that the
Standards for a Variance have not been met, based on the staff
report and testimony received; and
WHEREAS, Application No. 92003 was considered by the City
Council, along with Application Nos. 92001 and 92002 on November 9,
1992 at which time the applications and Planning Commission
recommendations were again reviewed, additional testimony both for
and against the applications was received and considered, and
Council deliberation was conducted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center to make the following findings regarding
Planning Commission Application No. 92003:
• 1. The City's Planning Consultant has shown that a gas
station /convenience store /car wash with the approximate
same square footage can be developed on this site meeting
all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The insistence on the part of the applicant to have a
prototype building on the lot is not a hardship as
defined in the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance
does not recognize a right to a prototype design as
grounds for ,granting a variance from any provision of the
code.
3. The circumstances surrounding this variance application
are not unique to this parcel of land, but are likely to
be repeated in other instances along Brooklyn Boulevard.
4. The hardship of not being able to build the desired
building on this site is a self- imposed; hardship.
Applicant asserts that the loss of 18' of dedicated
as part of the platting process is a hardship. While the
18' dedication is a challenge to developing a proper site
layout, it is not a prohibitive challenge. Design
solutions do exist which the applicant will not consider.
Even after the dedication of 18' of right -of -way the
subject lot is neither so small nor so irregular in shape
M as to justify a variance.
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -267
5. Approval of the variance in question would not be in the
City's best interests inasmuch as it would set a poor
precedent for future development and redevelopment on
Brooklyn Boulevard by placing corporate image above local
aesthetic standards.
6. Absent the ability to find that the Standards for a
Variance are met, the only way to accommodate the
applicant's request to allow a lesser greenstrip than
required would be to amend the ordinance so that like
situations could be treated in a similar manner.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to deny.Planning Commission Application No. 92003
submitted by Phillips 66 Company on the basis of the above findings
and considerations.
November 23, 1992 _
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST• A W n
Y
Deputy City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Dave Rosene , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen;
and the following voted against the same: Jerry Pedlar,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
t
The motion passed unanimously.
See B.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 92003 submitted by
Phillips 66 Company. This application is a companion to Application No. 92001. Explained
that originally, it was a setback variance; now, it is a greenstrip variance. This application
was tabled by the City Council at its February 10, 1992, meeting with the applicant's consent.
This application was reconsidered by the Planning Commission at its October 29, 1992,
meeting and denial was recommended.
The City Manager then introduced Planning Commission Application No. 92001 submitted
by Phillips 66 Company requesting site and building plan approval to construct a gas
station/convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was tabled
by the City Council at its February 10, 1992, meeting with the consent of the applicant and
direction to pursue a study of Brooklyn Boulevard which should guide consideration of this
proposal. The applicant has submitted revised plans which, under City Ordinance, must be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reconsidered this
application at its October 29, 1992, meeting and approval was recommended subject to the
adoption of an ordinance amendment.
The City Manager then introduced Planning Commission Application No. 92002 submitted
• by Phillips 66 Company requesting preliminary plat approval. This application was also
tabled by the City Council with the applicant's consent at its February 10, 1992, meeting, but
did not have to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission. Approval of this application
is also recommended.
The City Manager recommended the Council consider all three applications together. He
stated these applications were tabled by the City Council on February 10, 1992, following
review of the applications and review of a recommendation by the Planning Commission to
deny Application No. 92001 and Application No. 92003. He further explained the Planning
Commission had recommended approval of the preliminary plat, Application No. 92002,
subject to three conditions of approval.
The Director of Planning and Inspection further explained the three applications to the
Council, and used transparencies to further clarify the current proposal from Phillips 66
Company. He stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the variance,
and recommended approval of the development plans '`. contingent on an ordinance
amendment being adopted to allow the Council an option other than the 15 foot greenstrip.
Mayor Paulson questioned why this matter was before the Council prior to the completion
of the Brooklyn Boulevard study. The Director of Planning and Inspection answered the
applications are back for reconsideration at the applicants_ request because they have offered
revised plans.
11/9/92 -5-
Jon Baccus, Phillips Petroleum Company, explained approximately two years ago Phillips
developed a design plan which would function well from customer and operational
standpoints, and would meet all city code requirements. He further explained, thereafter,
Phillips was advised by City staff that 18 feet along 69th Avenue was needed for possible
future widening of 69th Avenue. Mr. Baccus stated the additional 18 feet does not allow
Phillips to meet all greenstrip requirements. He showed Council an illustration of the
landscaping proposed by Phillips which would include a keystone wall similar to what has
been utilized along 69th Avenue. Mr-. Baccus informed Council that Phillips is agreeable
to using brick on its building instead of the stone they normally use as requested by the City.
Mayor Paulson asked if the reason for Phillips' request for Council to decide this matter
before the completion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, was because of the frontage road
possibly being proposed. Mr. Baccus answered no.
The City Manager stated the frontage road is only in the discussion stages. He explained
the road being discussed is really not a frontage road, but really an access drive going from
business to business. The City Manager also stated the consultant, Timothy J. Griffin of
Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban, and the Planning Commission recommended the City
continue to enforce the setback of 50 feet.
Councilmember Rosene asked if the individual businesses agree to have an access road, who
would pay for it -- the businesses to share, or just the City? The City Manager answered
discussions are in the preliminary stages, and the question of financing has not been looked
at. •
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated with respect to the Brooklyn Boulevard
Study, the consultants were recommending the City maintain the 50 -foot setback at this time
which might accommodate an access drive if needed.
Councilmember Cohen asked staff to illustrate on the map the possible site for the access
road. The Director of Planning and Inspection showed Council the location, and explained
in the current comprehensive plan, the whole triangular area currently, bounded by 69th,
Lee and Brooklyn Boulevard is recommended for commercial land use in the future.
Mayor Paulson suggested the Council delay action on this matter until the Brooklyn
Boulevard Study is complete. See C. The Planning Commission did not believe the
standards for variance were met in this case. The Planning: Commission further suggested
if the Council is going to vary, do not vary in the setback':just in the 15 -foot greenstrip.
Mayor Paulson asked the Director of Planning and Inspection for his recommendation. The
Director of Planning and Inspection replied (See D) follow the Planning Commission's
"recommendation and amend the zoning ordinance to allow this kind of consideration
imsimilar situation.
11/9/92 - 6 -
Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company, is a request for a
variance from Section 35 -700 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than a 15' greenstrip
along 69th Avenue North and along Brooklyn Boulevard at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard;
Planning Commission Application No. 92001 submitted by Phillips 66 Company, a request
for site and building plan approval to construct a gas station/convenience store /car wash; and
Application No. 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company, a request for preliminary plat
approval at 8:16 p.m. He inquired if was anyone present who wished to address the
Council.
Randy Rau, 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard, stated he owns the Holiday Station, and the Phillips
proposal is too large for the property. Mr. Rau stated he does not agree with a 3 -foot
keystone wall as a replacement for grass, and the 18 -foot dedication is important to the local
businesses. He asked the Director of Planning and Inspection to show where the car wash
will be located, and asked if the car wash will have air- powered doors, as they are very loud
and will disturb the neighbors, or electric doors which do not make much noise. The
Director of Planning and Inspection showed the proposed location of the car wash, and
answered he did not know what type of doors Phillips was planning on using.
Bob Grosshans, 6920 Lee Avenue North, stated the site is too small, and recommended the
City Council deny the applications.
Gene Wright, owner of the four -plex next to the proposed car wash, which houses Northwest
Residence requested a visual and sound barrier be established between the applicant's
property and his property.
Mayor Paulson asked the Director of Planning and Inspection if there was a provision for
visual and sound barriers. The Director of Planning and Inspection answered there is a
for a -
proposal 6 foot wood fence along the north and west property lines.
Mr. David Nelson, Phillips 66 consultant, stated he would like to know more about the plans
for anaccess road. He further stated Phillips 66 plans to install benches along the sidewalk
because of the loss of greenstrip, and the doors on the car wash will be electric doors. Mr.
Nelson stated this application is an opportunity to make something of Brooklyn Boulevard,
to develop Brooklyn Boulevard without the City expending any money. Mr. Nelson urged
the Council to consider Phillips proposal.
Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North, stated he owns the property at the tip of the triangle.
He explained he is against this proposal because of the noise and appearance.
Mr. Wright asked Mr. Baccus why Phillips wants this property, and why Phillips purchased
it prior to receiving approval to build. Mr. Baccus responded when Phillips began working
on the site, the building met all requirements -- the property is zoned for a gas station.
11/9/92
-7-
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
close the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Scott stated there are many problems with this application including the 15-
foot greenstrip minimum. She pointed out if Phillips erects a keystone wall, there will not
even be one foot of greenstrip in some areas. Councilmember Scott stated as a City Council
we have an obligation to other business owners who have complied with our ordinances.
She stated she believes the applicant can alter the plans to meet the requirements and that
the 15 foot greenstrip is a minimum requirement for a Brooklyn Boulevard study.
Councilmember Cohen respected Councilmember Scott's comments. He explained, however,
in Brooklyn Center's RFP, this City Council did make the development proposal for 6901
Brooklyn Boulevard a high priority. He stated this property needs to be developed, and the
City has an applicant who will develop the property with their own dollars, not with City
money. Councilmember Cohen further stated if the Council wants to move forward with the
Brooklyn Boulevard beautification, this proposal meets the requirements. He believed the
applicant has brought forward a plan, and it is possible it could be improved upon. He
further stated he was in favor of this application. -
Councilmember Pedlar recalled the Council tabled this matter and asked the consultant to
look at this application and the application by the 50's Grill. He stated the 50's Grill has
now be dealt with. He further stated he agrees with both Councilmembers Scott and Cohen.
Councilmember Pedlar expressed concern about the lack of progress on Brooklyn Boulevard.
He reminded Council this is an opportunity to move forward. He agreed there are issues
to be dealt with such as the noise and the upkeep of property. Councilmember Pedlar asked
the applicants to work with the abutting property owners to alleviate these problems.
" Councilmember Pedlar read the following statement from the consultant's report:
Apparently by design, the Phillips and Amoco sites are not interested in achieving such a
relationship, but rather only stating their corporate identity and presence." He asked for an
explanation. The Director of Planning and Inspection answered the consultant was
suggesting Phillips follow the architecture north of 69th Avenue, and to use some
imagination with their. See E.
Mayor Paulson agreed with many of the concerns of Councilmember Scott. He stated the
Council has not really received an answer as to why the applicant brought these applications
to the Council before the completion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. Mayor Paulson
stressed the importance of looking at the existing businesses and what this will do to them.
He asked, the Council to have some patience in this matter stating Council -has been
consistent in approving anything that comes before us. Mayor Paulson pointed out the
opposition from residents and from the consultants. He quoted the consultant:
11/9/92 -8-
"The purpose of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study is to prepare a plan for the economic
preservation and redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. To that end DSU has been
commissioned to prepare a plan which integrates economic development requirements
and regional and local transportation needs with urban design principles that will create
a sense of place that is Brooklyn Boulevard. If the study is to be successful, it will have
to do away with rubber stamp development prototypes and relentless traffic regulations,
while retaining their economic and planning integrity. Then, through the creative
application of urban design. principles and civic priorities, a distinctive environment for
Brooklyn Boulevard will be created that meets the respective and not necessarily
incompatible objectives of an aesthetic landscape, successful commerce and the efficient
movement of multi -modal traffic."
Mayor Paulson stated he has no problem with a gas station eventually going on this
property; but he believed the applicant should comply with the City's regulations.
Councilmember Rosene stated there is no single correct vote; there are excellent arguments
on both sides. He agreed until some of these problems are worked out, it is not possible
to vote on this matter. Councilmember Rosene suggested the applicant agree to continue
this matter until the Brooklyn Boulevard Study is complete, and work with the neighboring
residents to work out the noise and visual barrier problems.
The City Attorney asked the Director of Planning and Inspection what the limitations are
in the zoning ordinance upon which City Council would act on these kinds of applications.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reported under the zoning ordinance, there are
certain time limits. He further explained the Planning Commission has up to 60 days to
make its recommendation, which it has, and then the City Council has another 30 days after
that to make a final decision.
The City Attorney stated unless the Brooklyn Boulevard Study is going to be completed and
implemented within 30 days, the applicant can insist on a decision on these applications
within that time limit; however, the applicant is free to waive this time limit.
Councilmember Rosene summarized the Planning Commission has made their
recommendation to approve two of the applications with the third application recommended
for approval contingent upon the City Council adopting an ordinance amendment to allow
a Council approved substitute for the 15 -foot greenstrip requirement adjacent to public
right-of-way. Councilmember Rosene asked if the ordinance is changed, will the Council
be within the 30 -day requirement. The City Attorney answered no, because the Planning
Commission then would need to publish the proposed ordinance change a two public
hearing would need to be held by the Council following publication of the amendments.
Councilmember Scott stated the real question for the Council is the variance request for the
greenstrip. She stated the site plan cannot be approved if the variance is not approved.
11/9/92 -9-
The City Attorney stated everything is contingent upon the plat approval. He explained the
Council can legally approve or disapprove. The Director of Planning Inspection
section
P
suggested if Council denies these applications, that Council direct staff to prepare a
resolution outlining Council's reasons for denial to be brought back for the Council's
consideration.
Councilmember Rosene expressed his uneasiness about doing this sort of creative platting
and asked if it is common for an applicant to request such changes. The Director of
Planning and Inspection stated the Council cannot ignore the 18 -feet right -of -way requested
by Hennepin County, Councilmember Cohen asked if the 18 -feet dedication is required
right now. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained Hennepin County has advised
staff it will need, at a minimum, 18 feet to widen 69th Avenue. The Director of Public
Works advised Council in his opinion, p on, these improvements s to 69th Avenue
replanting causes the need for the rights of why dedication will take place in 5 to 10 years.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Mayor Paulson to direct
staff to prepare a resolution for denial of Planning Commission Application No. 92002
submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for preliminary plat approval. Vote on the
motion: three ayes, two nays. The motion passed. Councilmembers Cohen and Pedlar voted
nay.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott
directing staff to prepare a resolution for denial of Planning Commission Application No.
92003 submitted b Phillips
66 Company.
Y P Vote on the
motion: four ayes, Y one nay. he
motion passed. Councilmember Pedlar voted nay. Y
There; was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene
directing staff to prepare a resolution for denial of Planning Commission Application No.
92001 submitted by Phillips 66 Company.
Councilmember Cohen opposed the motion stating his application is an opportunity o
PP pp rtuni for
Brooklyn Center. He explained it is not going to be easy to develop the properties on
Brooklyn Boulevard.
Councilmember Scott stated she has no problem with the concept of a filling station on this
property, however she stated she will not approve the variance.
Councilmember Cohen agreed a variance is not the way to go, however the Planning
Commission did ive Council
g an option.
He stated h
eP would like
to reserve the right to
introduce a resolution to approve an ordinance change as recommended by the Planning
Commission. The City Attorney suggested staff prepare findings for Council's review at the
next Council meeting.
11/9/92 _10-
1
Councilmember Cohen again suggested Council carefully consider these applications. The
City Attorney pointed out the Council will not be voting on these resolutions until the next
Council meeting on November 23, 1992.
Councilmember Scott asked the City Attorney if the applicant submitted a revised plan,
would it have to go back to the Planning Commission prior to going before the Council.
The City Attorney answered if the changes made were not substantial, then it would not
have to be referred back to the Planning Commission. He further explained in this case,
however, if the applicant came back with a proposal which did not require a variance, then
the Council would have to decide if this public hearing would be adequate or if it should go
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Vote on the motion: three ayes, two nays. The motion passed. Councilmembers Pedlar
and Cohen voted nay.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
directing staff to prepare an ordinance amendment 'as recommended by the Planning
Commission to allow a Council approved substitute for the 15' greenstrip requirement
adjacent to public right-of-way.
Y
Councilmember Scott stated the timing is totally wrong. She explained the City paid a great
deal of money for a consultant and now the Council is not listening to the consultant's
advice.
Councilmember Rosene stated he is not comfortable with ordinance amendments which take
things out of the realm of being clear cut and put them in the realm of Council's opinion.
He explained whenever Council takes things out of a strictly - written ordinance and puts it
into Council's opinion, it is a dangerous area.
Vote on the motion: three ayes, two nays. The motion passed. Mayor Paulson and
Councilmember Scott voted nay.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:40 p.m., and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
STAFF REPORT REGARDING ICE CONTROL PRACTICES
The City , Manager presented the staff report regarding ice control practices stating a
suggestion was made during the Financial and Service Prioritization Process to move toward
using straight salt for street ice control rather than the current 80 percent sand/20 percent
salt mixture.
11/9/92
The Director of Public Works explained cities have recognized using the sand /salt mixture
has a number of disadvantages including: sand provides traction, but does not assist in
removing ice which is bonded to pavement; sand fills and blocks catch basins and storm
sewers or remains on the streets, necessitating extensive cleanup of streets, sewers, and catch
basins each spring; and sand collected during cleanup must be disposed of, and opportunities
for disposal are becoming less available and more costly.
The Director of Public Works further explained if this policy change is approved, street
maintenance staff would use this winter, 1992 -93, as a test period. He also explained salt
is considerably more expensive than sand, but much less salt is needed to provide effective
ice control
Councilmember Scott asked the Director of Public Works to clarify the city would be using
slightly more salt, but no sand. The Director of Public Works answered yes.
The City Manager stated there is an increasing cost for disposal of the sand as it has an
environmental impact and cannot just be disposed of in-a landfill
Councilmember Rosene observed the sand is never completely cleaned up in the spring, and
he would like to reduce the amount of sand on the streets. He asked if salt will damage
boulevards as much as the sand does. The Director of Public Works said as much damage
occurs to boulevards from heavy sand as from the salt accumulation.
Councilmember Rosene asked if the City has a mitigation technique to use cattails in storm •
water ponds. The Director of Public Works replied yes.
Councilmember Cohen explained his property has a county road on one side and a city road
on the other, and the city side, on which sand was used, was worse than the county side, on
which salt was used.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
approve: the proposed policy change to use salt for street ice control. The motion passed
unanimously.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM REGARDING
ABATEMENT OF WATER POLLUTION
The City Manager presented the staff report regarding a public education program regarding
abatement of water pollution. He explained the Storm Drainage Utility annual budget
includes $5,000 for public education programs; and at its July 27, 1992 meeting, the Council
approved the concept of publishing education material regarding storm drainage and water
pollution abatement, and the concept of a coloring contest.
11/9/92 - 12 -
The City Manager asked the Council to discuss and decide whether to extend the 1991 -1992
priorities through 1993 or decide on a process for 1993. The City Manager stated the cost
of the planning process is approximately $2,000 to $3,000.
Councilmember Rosene asked what the City received for this money. The City Manager
explained a facilitator was hired, two meetings were held, a computer was rented and
mailings went out.
Councilmember Scott agreed there is a need to look at the priorities. However, she
recommended scheduling a meeting with all commissions for discussion rather than hiring
a facilitator and renting a computer. The City Manager offered to provide Council with a
scaled down process.
Councilmember Pedlar agreed with Councilmember Scott stating there is a definite value
to this process and value in the interaction and the brainstorming.
Councilmember Rosene stated the Human Rights and Resources Commission is making
plans to bring together all commissions and department heads.
Mayor Paulson asked staff to work with all the commissions and to include the members of
Council.
• AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING GREENSTRIP REQUIREMENTS
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Greenstrip Requirements. He explained to Council this Ordinance amendment
is directly related to three resolutions regarding Application Numbers 92001, 92002, and
92003. He suggested Council consider the three resolutions and the Ordinance amendment
at the same time.
Jon Baccus, Phillips 66 Company, requested the site plan application be tabled until the
completion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. He explained Phillips 66 understands the
Council's concerns about the site plan.
Councilmember Cohen asked if the underground tanks have been removed from this
property. The City Manager answered yes, one year ago and Phillips 66 has up to two years
from the date of removal to use this property as a gas station.
Councilmember Rosene stated this is a nonconforming use of this property: He explained
if the Council believes a filling station is not an appropriate use of this property, the Council
should not approve the plat.
11/23/92 -7-
r ,
Mayor Paulson asked if the Council approved the plat, variance and ordinance, could the
Council deny the site plan. The City Manager answered if the Council approved just the
plat and not the variance, then the Ordinance governs the use of the site.
Councilmember Rosene explained if there is a nonconforming use of a property, and the
building is burned more than 50 percent, it cannot be rebuilt for that purpose.
Councilmember Rosene stated he would not recommend approving the variance or the site
plan.
Mayor Paulson stated the question is does the City want a filling station on this property.
He stated he would like to wait for the consultant's report.
Councilmember Cohen asked if the Council approves the plat and the first reading of the
Ordinance, what is the timeline for the second reading and eventual approval. The City
Manager stated it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the second reading.
Councilmember Cohen agreed with Councilmember Rosene that the only use that has come
forward for this property is this application. He encouraged the Council to continue to work
with Phillips 66 to see this property developed.
Councilmember Pedlar asked if the Council approves the plat and the first reading of the
Ordinance, would it be possible to receive the consultant's report prior to the second reading
of the Ordinance. The City Manager answered it is possible. Councilmember Pedlar stated •
Council would like to see the results of the study, approve the plat and the first reading of
the Ordinance, and then after the presentation of the study, present the Ordinance for
second reading.
The Director of Planning and Inspection clarified the Council was reviewing, discussing and
giving direction with respect to an Ordinance Amendment to the 15' Greenstrip, and then
referring the matter to the Planning Commission for their required input and
recommendation. He further explained the City Council was to review the proposed
language and discuss the desirability of having the Ordinance affect all zoning districts or
perhaps limit it only to a few common districts or allow it only n certain streets such as
Y
mayor thoroughfares. He continued to explain the language presented addressed only one
section in the Ordinance which refers to all zoning districts. There are four other sections
in the. Ordinance that deal with the same requirements and might need to be amended
depending on the direction the Council 'gives.
Councilmember Scott stated the first thing the Council needs to decide is whether the Plat
is approved or not. Councilmember Rosenc stated he was in favor of going along with the
plat approval until he realized if the Council approves one step it is harder to deny other
steps. Mayor Paulson stated approving the plat would not be detrimental to putting
property.
something nice on the
- P
11/23/92
-8-
Councilmember Cohen stated the issue is redevelopment on Brooklyn Boulevard, and the
Council may not find our Ordinances neatly packaged to take care of redevelopment on
Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated he was not impressed with the progress on the study by the
consultant. Councilmember Cohen stressed the need for redevelopment on Brooklyn
Boulevard, and this is a corporation willing to redevelop with their own money.
Mayor Paulson stated he had met with the consultant, and liked the ideas presented so far.
He stated this study is what the City must do for the long run - -the future plan and vision
for Brooklyn Boulevard.
Councilmember Pedlar stated he was concerned about the progress of the study. He agreed
with Mayor Paulson to redevelop Brooklyn Boulevard, however the Council will have to
prioritize where the dollars will go. He suggested there may be more benefit to the
community as a whole to prioritize the residential property. Councilmember Pedlar advised
Council to be cautious. He said the Council has an opportunity to remove an eyestore, and
the Council must be realistic. Councilmember Pedlar agreed to wait for the consultant's
report.
Mayor Paulson stated Council is not shutting down this application, but the Council must
take the action that is in the best interest of the City. He explained the frontage road being
proposed by the consultant is very unique and must be looked at more closely. Mayor
Paulson asked Council to wait until the study is completed to consider this application.
• RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED
The City Manager presented a Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning
Commission Application No. 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
approve Application No. 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances.
3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to
indicate a dedication of right -of -way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18'
in width.
The motion passed. Mayor Paulson voted against the motion.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning
Commission Application No. 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company.
11/23/92 _ -9-
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -267
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the
removal of Finding Number 1 and renumbering the subsequent findings accordingly:
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene. Vote on the motion: four ayes, one nay. The motion passed. Councilmember
Pedlar noted nay.
Councilmember Scott suggested referring the Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding Greenstrip Requirements to the Planning Commission. She stressed
the need to look at the large picture, not just how it applies to one piece of property.
Councilmember Rosene stated he had a problem amending an Ordinance. He explained
whenever the Council rules on this type of thing, the Council is setting standards, and the
Council must be very careful.
There was motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Greenstrip
Requirements to the Planning Commission to develop a set of standards for greenstrip
requirements that would deal with redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard and other similar
areas of the City.
Mayor Paulson asked what else would be added to the requirements. The City Manager
answered the Council should allow some flexibility in the standards because of the needs of
redevelopment.
Councilmember Rosene stated to deny Councilmember's Cohen motion would be
tantamount to saying the only way to make our City look nice is greenstrip. He encouraged
the Council to allow the Planning Commission to discuss and provide a recommendation.
The Director of Planning and Inspecting stated the standards give some flexibility, but it is
very difficult to write an ordinance that gives flexibility but also sets a standard for all cases.
The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning
Commission Application No. 92001 submitted by Phillips 66 Company.
Jon Baccus explained the reason Phillips 66 Company was requesting tabling of Application
No. 92001 was to wait for the results of the redevelopment study.
11/23/92 - 10-
CORRECTION
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to table
Application No. 92001 per the applicant's request until the Brooklyn Boulevard Study is
completed. The motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:05 p.m., and reconvened at 9:18 p.m.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager presented a Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation for the
Public Service of Organizations Participating in Brooklyn Center's Adopt -A -Park, Adopt -A-
Trail, and Adopt -A -Street Programs. The groups were: Brooklyn Center Community Oriented
Policing; Brooklyn Center Charter Commission; Brooklyn Center Rotary Club; Brooklyn Swim
Club; Children's World; Evergreen Park School & P.T.O.; Kids on the Move Daycare;
Neighbors of Bellvue; Target "Good Neighbors;" Textgron Financial Corporation and Twin
Lake Association.
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -268
Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION FOR THE PUBLIC
SERVICE OF ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN BROOKLYN CENTER'S ADOPT -A-
PARK, ADOPT -A- TRAIL, AND ADOPT -A- STREET PROGRAMS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene and the motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Pedlar asked staff to provide a copy of this resolution to the Park and
Recreation Commission.
Councilmember Rosene stated it was a pleasure to have such groups working in the City and
there are also a number of individuals and families involved in this activity. He mentioned Bill
Price and his wife have been cleaning up the Mississippi, and he thanked the City Manager for
installing a sign with their names.
Councilmember Scott reported she met with staff regarding the police canine unit. She stated
she had received many calls supporting this program.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to free
the funds that were made available in 1992 and put the canine unit back on the street as soon
as possible.
11/23/92
Councilmember Rosene explained he is not as enthusiastic as Councilmember Scott because of
the substantial amount of time spent with the dog by its trainer, and the difficulty of handling
the pay for this time. Councilmember Rosene was also concerned about the times the dog is not
available and recommended working with other communities to coordinate the use of dogs.
Councilmember Scott stated such a plan is underway for after the first of the year, and she
reminded Council the cost of a dog is much less than the cost of a police officer.
Councilmember Rosene agreed stating the citizens want more protection, but the budget does
not allow for hiring of another officer.
Councilmember Pedlar stated Councilmember Scott indicated there are funds for 1992, but asked
where the funds will come from in 1993. The City Manager stated the money has been found
in the police department budget. He explained the police department had estimated $30,000 for
the domestic abuse fund, however with the addition of three other communities to the program,
at least $6,000 of that fund will be available.
Councilmember Pedlar was concerned about the availability of the dog. He supported this, but
would like to stipulate that the funding is required to come from within the police department,
and there would be no reduction of staff in the police department as it relates to the funding for
1993. Councilmember Pedlar believed there are philanthropic funds available, such as donations
from the Lions Club. He asked data be collected in early 1993 as to the availability of the dog.
The City Manager explained the domestic abuse program would not be cut back, the reduction
in proposed expenses was because three other communities are joining the program. He stated
the Lions Club and others have helped in the past with one -time expenses, but the base program
funds should really come from City funds.
Councilmember Pedlar stated there is some difference of opinion in the police department about
the use of dogs. He suggested Chief Hampton address this topic during his meetings with staff.
Councilmember Scott explained the previous problem was because there were no guidelines by
which the canine program operated. She further explained Chief Hampton will communicate
with the officers the parameters by which the program operates.
Councilmember Cohen asked if the funding with other communities will be handled by mutual
aid. The City Manager answered it may be handled under the existing aid agreement or by
creating a new one. He stated the three or four police chiefs will get together to coordinate the
scheduling.
The motion passed unanimously.
11/23/92 - 12- •