HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 05-11 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MAY 11, 1992
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Opening Ceremonies
4. Open Forum
5. Council Report
6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk 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 form the consent agenda and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
7. Approval of Minutes:
*a. April 20, 1992 - Board of Equalization
*b. April 27, 1992 - Regular Session
8. Mayoral Appointment:
a. Planning Commission
9. Presentation:
a. Senator Bill Luther
b. Representative Phil Carruthers
10. Planning Commission Item: (7:10 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 92007 submitted by
Budgetel is a request for approval of a variance from
Section 35 -400 of the zoning ordinance to allow a storage
accessory building 3' from the right -of -way of Shingle
Creek Parkway.
-This application was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission at its meeting on April 16, 1992.
The application was scheduled for consideration at the
City Council's April 27, 1992, meeting and tabled at the
applicant's request until the May 11, 1992, meeting.
11. Ordinances:
a. An Ordinance Establishing a Final Plat Fee
-This item was discussed at the April 27, 1992, Council
meeting and is offered for a first reading this evening.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 11, 1992
b. An Ordinance Establishing a Fee for Vacating a Street,
Alley, or Easement
-This item was discussed at the April 27, 1992, Council
meeting and is offered for a first reading this evening.
12. Discussion Items:
a. Administrative Traffic Committee Report Regarding
Petitions for Sidewalk on 59th Avenue North, Brooklyn
Boulevard to Xerxes Avenue North
1. Establishing Project No. 1992 -13, Installation of
Sidewalk, North Side of 59th Avenue, Brooklyn
Boulevard to Xerxes Avenue North
b. Recommendations from Human Rights and Resources
Commission
1. The City of Brooklyn Center Should Become a Member
of the Minnesota League of Human Rights Commissions
2. Schedule a Joint Meeting of the City Council and
City Advisory Commissions
c. Award of Consulting Contract for Brooklyn Boulevard Study
1. Resolution Awarding Contract for Consulting Services
to Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
d. 50's Grill Expansion
13. Resolutions:
*a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Completion of
Water Distribution System, Improvement Project No. 1990 -
03A and Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station No.
1, Improvement Project No. 1992 -11, Contract 1992 -H
*b. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Brookdale
Sanitary Sewer Replacement, Improvement Project No. 1992 -
04, Contract 1992 -C
*c. Approving Change Order No. 2 for 69th Avenue Soil
Corrections Phase I, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10,
Contract 1991 -I
*d. Approving Amendment to Agreement with SEH, Inc. to
Provide Additional Services Relating to 69th Avenue Soil
Corrections, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10
-This amendment covers the additional engineering
services as required in relation to the installation of
the wick drain system.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 11, 1992
*e. Accepting Quotes and Authorizing Purchase of One (1)
Greens Mower for the Golf Course
*f. Accepting Quote and Approving Purchase of Vehicle
Retarder for Engine 6
-This item was approved in the 1992 Fire Department
budget.
*g. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the
Dedicated Public Service of Dale Ackmann, Hennepin County
Administrator
*h. Approving Purchase of Equipment and Authorizing Transfer
of Funds from Drug Forfeiture Monies
*14. Licenses
15. Adjournment
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER c«mcu Meeting Date May 11, 1992
Agenda Item Number V
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 1992 - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION
DEPT. APPROVAL.
Patti A. Page, ept4 City Clerk
. 4
MANAGER ' S REVIEW/RECOM ENDATION: ,-
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
•
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
APRIL 20
199 2
CITY IIALL
BALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Equalization and was called to order
by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 :01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip
Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Hennepin County Assessor Don
Monk, City Assessor Mark Parish and Council Secretary Cathy Cleveland.
PURPOSE OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
The City Manager explained the purpose Qf the City Council was to act as the Board of
Equalization and act as an appeal Board to the Assessor's setting of values. The assessment
is not based on taxes but on the relative value of the properties within the community and
certain principles are used by the assessor to try and equalize that value and then the local
Board's judgement is then passed onto the County. The County reviews the assessment and
then it goes onto the State.
CIT -Y-ASSESSOR'S REPORT
The City Assessor explained the City Board Qf Equalization is established by State law and
the City Charter. Notices were published in accordance with law. In addition to the
published and posted notices, each property owner in the City received a 1992 market value
notice. The assessment is made up of two components; the value of the property, and the
classification of the property. Different classes of property pay different tax rates as
prescribed by State law. Tonights meeting is to review the assessment, values, and
classification. The Board's power and responsibility is in these two areas. The Board may
decrease the value, confirm the value, or increase the values as they see fit. The Board may
also change classifications if there is an appeal and information provided along those lines.
Tonights assessment hearing is to review the January 1992 assessments. The January 1992
value will become the basis for the 1993 taxes. In order to arrive at thG 1992 values, the
City Assessor and his staff reviewed sales from October 1990 to September of 1991. They
also inspected some 2,000 properties over the course of 1991. Through the use of a
computerized appraisal system, they were able to re- evaluate the entire group of properties
4/20/92 - -
120 / 1
within the jurisdiction for 1992. In December of 1991, the residential assessments were
finalized and those values were mailed out along with a homestead card on January 2. The
nonresidential values were finalized in January of 1992 and mailed in March and early April.
Tonights meeting of the local Board of Equalization is the first step in the formal process.
If the property owners are not satisfied with the results of tonights meeting they may appeal
to the County Board of Equalization held in June. The property owner must first appear
at the local level before they can appeal to the County level. This fall there will be budget
hearings and truth in taxation hearings. Over the winter, tax rates will be calculated and
statements mailed. The first half of the payment will be due on May 15 of next year. May
15 is also the deadline for filing tax court petitions relating to this assessment.
The City Assessor reviewed the definition of "market value" as defined by Minnesota
Statutes and indicated there are a number of points which are fundamental to market value:
1. The market value is the most probable price (not the highest or the lowest or a
simple average).
2. It's in a cash basis,
3. There is reasonable market exposure.
4. Both the buyer and the seller are informed and motivated by self - interest.
5. It recognizes the present use of the property as well as any potential uses.
6. Its an "arms length" transactions in the open market place.
PUBLIC INQUIRY REGARDING LOCAL ASSESSMENTS
Valjean Wiley, 5621 Indiana Avenue North, PID #03- 118 -21 -31 -0001, stated one of his lots
should not be assessed at all because it is below the 100 year flood plain, which causes the
lot to be unbuildable and makes it worthless. Mr. Wiley also stated his house value has
gone up 26 % in three years and he feels this is different from the rest of Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Wiley what he feels his property should be valued at. Mr.
Wiley responded it should be reduced at least $35,000 from the land value because of this
unbuildable lot.
Councilmember Cohen pointed out that Hennepin County appraised this property as one
exceptional large lake -front lot. They did not use multiple lots in their assessment. IIo
asked the City Assessor to explain why the County appraised it in this fashion. The City
Assessor explained it is the actual number you arrive at as the market value that matters,
not how you arrive at the number, The City Assessor chose an approach which valued
multiple lot development and the County Assessor chose the large lot approach, either
approach is valid. This property has seen a number of increases that are anything but
modest, because it is one of the nicest pieces of property in Brooklyn Center. It is not
comparable to the average home, which is why the average market value (or average change
in value) is meaningless in this situation. The only thing that is being used is the market
4/20/92 .2-
value of this parcel. The Hennepin County Assessor looked at the parcel last year and
decided to evaluate it as one large piece of lake property and appraised its market value at
$290,(N. The City's appraisal of this property indicates a market value of $275,000.
Councilmember Cohen stated since the County Assessor has taken away the issue of how
many buildable lots there are on the property by describing the property as one mceptional
lake front n' see basis for m an of the adjustments that Mr. Wile y
Sot he doesn't an a making g Y
J
requests, especially since the City appraisal is less than the County's.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
approve the City Assessor's recommended valuation of $275,000 for PID #03- 118- 21 -31-
0001. The motion passed unanimously,
Edward Noble, 5117 Xerxes Avenue North, PID #10- 118 -21 -11 -0009, felt his property is
over valued because there is no access road which makes the land unbuildable. His only use
for the land is for agricultural use but the value has increased 49% this year.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
approve staffs recommendation. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager indicated an appeal can be accomplished in person or by letter. In order
to appeal to the County, one of these methods must first take place at the City lcvcl.
The City Assessor reported the City has received the following three letters of appeal:
1. Twin City Federal, 2950 County Road 10, PID #03- 118 -21 -14 -0030. The
representative for Twin City Federal did not have any information about thv. inarket
value of the property, they just wish to appeal the assessment.
2. The Eretz Co. (Perkins), 5915 John Martin Drive, PID #02- 118 -21 -12 -0011. The
representatives from The Eretz Co. also provided no information about the market
value of the property, they just feel the value should be reduced.
3. Brookdale Christian Center, 6120 Xerxes Avenue North PIDs #02- 118 -21 -22 -0001,
02- 118- 21 -22- (OW2, and 35- 119 -21 -33 -0064. This church has a number of components
including a church operated day care. Since the parsonage is no longer occupied by
a minister, it will become taxable in the 1992 assessment. The second church building
was leased recently to another church. This second church organization has not
provided the City with documentation to provide for an exemption of that use.
The City Assessor asked the Board to approve these parcels as currently valued and
classified. If staff is unable to resolve this with the church, they will huvc sufficient time to
prepare a case and pursue it with the County.
4/20/92 - 3-
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve staff's recommended valuations for the following properties:
1. 'Twin City Federal, 2950 County Road 10, PID #03- 118 -21 -14 -0030,
2. The Erctz Co. (Perkins), 5915 John Martin Drive, PID #02- 118 -21 -12 -0011, and
3. Brookdale Christian Center, 6120 Xerxes Avenue North, PID #02- 118 -21 -22 -0001,
02- 118 -21 -22 -0002, 35- 119 -21- 33064.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve the 1992 assessment, including the parcels reviewed made at the April 20th Board
of Equalization meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene
to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City
Council adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor
Recorded and transcribed by:
Cathy Cleveland
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
4/20/92 -4-
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 27, 1992
CITY HALL
L
T O QRD
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor
Todd Paulson at 7:16 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip
Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Recreation Arnie
Mavis, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere,
and Council Secretary Carla Wirth.
The location of the meeting was changed due to an evacuation order by the City police
department. A citizen brought into the police station, a box of old, unstable dynamite. The
meeting was moved to the Community Center,
P FORUM
Mayor Paulson noted Dean Nyquist has requested to use the open forum session this
evening.
Dean Nyquist, 5701 June Avenue, explained he would like to address volunteerism at the
Council's May 11, 1992, meeting.
He inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council. There
being none, he continued with the regular agenda items,
COUNCI RE ORTS
There were no Council reports.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items he removed from the
consent agenda. No requests were made.
4/27/92 _ 1 _
PROCLAMATION
Member Celia Scott introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY, 1992 AS ARBOR MONTH IN BROOKLYN
CENTER
The motion for adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO 92 -94
Member Celia Scutt introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENTPROJECTNO .1992 - 12, PURCHASE
OF P ROPERTY AT 4100 51ST AVENUE NORTH, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFORE AND AUTHORIZING CI'T'Y MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE
PURCHASE THEREOF
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar, T'he motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO 92 - 91
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and muvcd its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO CONVERT ELECTRICAL SERVICE
LINES FROM OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND, 69TH AVENUE
RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NQ�2 - 92
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolutivn and moved its advptivn:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO A CHECK COLLECTION
AGREEMENT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously.
4/27/92'
-2-
RESOLUTION NO 92-93
. Mcmbcr Celia Scott introduced the fallowing resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO COMMEND LOGIS FOR WINNING A HIGH - TECHNOLOGY
AWARD FOR LONG TERM COST SAVINQS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO 9 -94
Member Celia Scott introduced the fallowing resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
4200 FEET OF FIFE HOSE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar, The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -95
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and mavc;d its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
20 SC:O "1 - 1' AIR TANKS FOR THE SELF - CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing 1
p reso utlon was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION N0_92-96
Member Celia Scott introduced the following rusolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. P.W. 22 -02 -92 WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY, PROVIDING FOR COST PARTICIPATION IN THE REVISION OF
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND 69TH
AVENUE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NQ 92 -97
Mcmbcr C.clia Scott introduced the following resolution and movcd its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
EXTENDED BODY MINI PASSENGER VAN
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The .motion passed unanimously,
4/27/92 -3-
RESOLUTION NO 9Z q
Mombcr Celia Sc:Utt introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AND CONSENT ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY ON
LYNBROOK BOWL, AND AMENDING THE 1991 BUDGET
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously,
RESOLU - ION NO 92 99
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBDIVISION 11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 91 -115
REGARDING FINANCIAL, TASK FORCE TERM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously.
LIC NSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
approve the following list of licenses:
BT I LK VE NDOR
Curtis Products 2516 Dodds Avenue
FOOD ESTABLISI
B.C. American Little League 7224 Indiana Avenue N.
MN Korean Evan. United Meth. Church 6830 Quail Avenue N.
Spiritual Life Ministries 6500 Shingle Creek Parkway
Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard
ITINERANI FOOD ESTABLISHmE
Twin Lake North Apartments 4539 58th Avenue N.
ME 1iANICA1,!qyR%TPk44Z
Air Corp., Inc, 4088 83rd Avenue N.
Allan Mechanical, Inc.
6020 Culligan Way
Anderson Heating and A/C 4347 Central Avenue NE
Brady Mechanical Services, Inc, 3075 C Spruce Street
Centaire, Inc. 7402 Washington Avenue S.
Louis DeGidio, Inc. 6501 Cedar Avenue S.
Egan & Sons Company 7100 Medicine Lake Road
Harris Mechanical Contracting Co, 2300 Territorial Road
4/27/92 -4-
Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors 7340 Washington Avenue S,
Midwest Equipment Co., Inc. 300 West University
Modern Heating and A/C, Inc. 2318 First Street NE
O'Keefe Mechanical 7251 Washington Avenue S.
Owens Services Corporation 930 East 80th Street
R &. S Heating and A/C 21357 Hemlock Avenue
E.A.H. Schmidt and Associates 3245 Winpark Drive
Standard Heating and A/C Co. 410 West Lake Street
Thermex Corporation 4850 Park Clen Road
QTOR VEHICLE. I) ALER HIP
Brookdale Ford, Inc, 2500 County Road 10
N TAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
Biorn and Barbara Carson 6331, 6401, 25 Beard Avenue N.
Donald J. Sisco 5543 Judy Lane
Renewal;
Earle Brown Farm Apartments
1701 -1707 64th Avenue N.
Northport Properties 5401 Brooklyn Boulevard
Eugene Hanauska 6538 Brooklyn Boulevard
Keith and Jane Olson 4107 Janet Lane
Ramoodit and Fazee Kimai 6913 Morgan Avenue N.
JRJ Properties 6825 -27 Noble Avenue N,
William and Linda Bjerke 3614 -16 50th Avenue N,
Selwin and Odelia Ortega 610 53rd Avenue N.
Kim McDonough 4703 68th Avenue N.
Leota Spalla 5364 72nd Circle N.
John and Mi Inselman 1013 73rd Avenue N.
SIG HANGER_
Arrow Sign Co. 18607 Highway 65 NE
Lawrcnce Signs, Inc. 945 Pierce Butler Route
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. 1700 West 78th Street
SP CIAL FQOD HANDLING ES'CABLISHMENT
Bizmart 5951 Earle Brown Drive
SWIMMING PQQL
Brookwood Estatcs 6201 N. Lilac Drive
Moorwood Townhouses 5839 Shores Drive
NW Racquet, Swim and Health Clubs 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue
'limber Ridge Apartments 6507 Camden Avenue N.
The motion passed unanimously.
4/27/92 -5 -
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APRIL 13 1992 -RE LAR SES ION
There was a motion by Councilmembcr Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
approve the minutes of April 13, 1992, regular session as printed. Vote: Three ayes, two
abstain. The motion passed. Councilmembers Pedlar and Scott abstained from voting.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 92007 SUBMITTED BY BUGETEL
The City Manager reported the applicant has requested this item he tabled. T
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
table consideration of Planning Commission application No. 92007 at the applicant's request.
The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH FEES FOR PROCESSING FINAL
PLATS AND FOR VACATI N S OR EASEMFN'i'S
The City Manager explained staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amendment and
resolution for Council consideration which provides for a separate final plat fee as well as
establishing a fee for vacation of streets, alleys, or easements.
Due to the City's present financial situation, Councilmember Scott indicated she supported
raising these Pees to cover the City's cost to process the applications.
Regarding vacation of easements, Councilmember Rosene pointed out some residents may
feel they are doing the City a favor by granting an easement, and may find it offensive that
they will be charged a fee to do so, The City Manager stated he will document the 'City's
cost for publication, etc. so residents know what costs are involved for the city.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment establishing a fee for vacation of streets,
alleys, or easements, and to prepare a resolution establishing fees. The motion passed
unanimously,
REPORT ON STATUS OF CONTRACT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE
The City Manager reported the City has not received notice of any legal action regarding
the award of the contract to S.M. Hentges &c Sons for the reconstruction of 69th Avenue.
Therefore, staff will proceed with the project pending final approval from the State of
Minnesota, State Aid division. No Council action was required regarding this item.
4/27/92 _ 6-
COMMUNITY CFN 'R P _ I LANE PO
The City Manager explained staff was asked to prepare a lap lane policy far Council
consideration. Staff also prepared information indicating the impact of the lap lane policy
in affect until February 2, 1992, and the impact of the lap lane policy with the water slide
in operation
Councilmember Scott commented after reviewing information submitted by staff, it appears
the lap lanes will be in operation as many hours as before the slide was constructed. She
commended the Park and Recreation Department and Recreation ]director for working out
this schedule. However, she was concerned about the Council adopting a formal lap lane
Policy which may complicate the staff's operation of the community center pool.
Mayor Paulson concurred staff has done an excellent job in working out this schedule based
on resident's concern and Council's input. He supported the recommendation and felt it
would result in higher usage of the pool.
Councilmember Cohen was concerned about the Council becoming involved with
administrative poli(.y and preferred the Council take action to receive the report and thank
those involved in its development. He pointed out if the Council adopts a policy regarding
administrative function, the Policy would need to come back for further Council action if it
is changed or adjusted in the future. Councilmember Cohen indicated he regretted the
original tone of forum this issue took and apologized for criticism directed towards staff on
this issue.
Councilmember Rosene indicated this issue was brought forward
Council asked staff to prepare a policy which accommodates as man a r esident, and the
people
which they did. He wanted to go on record there should not be anythingthe Council ca cannot
become involved with if a resident brings forward a concern. He also felt it was important
that residents ]mow the Council is accountable to address their concerns. Councilmember
Rosene stated he supports staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Pedlar agreed residents need to be aware they can come to the Council if
they have a concern which can not be rectified through staff. He explained his philosophy
for participative management where authority is passed through the organization to those
who are responsible for the operation. He agreed with Councilmember Cohen's comments
it was unfortunate the Council became involved with dialogue about the lap lanes, but
Council has the responsibility to listen to resident's concerns and find a resolution.
Councilmember Pedlar felt the Recreation Director needs the ability to make changes in this
policy, and he would not want to consider adoption of a resolution which would inhibit
staff's ability to operate on a day -to -day basis.
4/27/92 - 7 -
Mayor Paulson supported adoption of a policy which indicates the community pool is for
multi -use and then let staff direct the day -to -day operation. He added that while he does
not want to constrict staff, he feels it is the Council's duty to determine usage of public
funds and facilities and then empower staff to move forward,
Councilmember Pedlar felt the lap lane issue had been thoroughly discussed. He agreed
with adoption of a policy endorsing a multi -use pool. Councilmember Pedlar pointed out
there are some dedicated pool times for swim club sessions, swimming lessons, etc.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
adopt a polity indicating the Community Center pool shall be a multi -use pool. The motion
passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
accept stafr5 report on the Community Center pool lap lane policy and impact tables. The
motion passed unanimously.
WATER SLIDE GRAND dPENING
The Recreation Director announced a grand opening for the water slide will be held on
Sunday, May 17, 1992, at noon.
In response to questions from Councilmember Rosene, the Recreation Director indicated
the locker keys should be kept on the front of swimming suits to avoid damage to the water
slide. He then reviewed the number of people using the pool which reflected three times
the usage over last year. The Recreation Director reported he has received many favorable
comments from residents about the water slide, Staff will be addressing ways to recycle the
plastic wrist bands that are currently being used for admission control. With regard to
requiring swimmers to cross the pool area after using the water slide, the Recreation
Director explained the State Department of Health requires a dedicated plunge pool. Staff
will be looking into the possibility of using a ramp to exit the pool. Councilmcmber Rosene
pointed out adults are able to use the City's water slide holding young children, which is not
allowed at other water slides. The Recreation Director agreed more families are using the
water slide with their children.
The City Manager explained staff will be compiling a list of concerns and issues regarding
pool usage which can be reviewed and addressed.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
The City Manager reviewed State legislative impacts on the 1992 budget which may amount
to $70,000 to $100,000. The General Fund will be impacted by $50,000 to $75,000 since the
6.5% sales-tax has been extended to purchases made by municipalities. He reported on
elimination of levy limits and indicated staff anticipates further reduction in state aid in the
4/27/92 _ g .
next two ears
Y so prioritization in 1993 and 1994 will be important. With regard to truth in
taxation Olt; City Manager indicated staff will re area new n schedule for P P o h
consideration.
the Council's
Councilmember Cohen indicated he will prepare a detailed report on bills which will affect
Brooklyn Center for Council's consideration at the next meeting, He suggested Council
consider presenting resolutions of appreciation to legislators who were instrumental in
Passage. of special legislation on behalf of the City. It was noted Senator Luther and
Representative Carruthers will attend the May 11, 1992, Council meeting.
The City Manager suggested a letter of appreciation be prepared for the Mayor's signature.
Cowicilmember Cohen agreed and indicated he will provide pertinent information to the
City Manager.
In response to Graydon Boeck's question, Councilmember Cohen reported on the
elimination of the levy limit which would allow cities to raise taxes to cover budget shortfalls.
He felt the Financial Task Force should address the possibility that LOA may be eliminated
in the next two years.
N9 ME WITH CITY OF BROOKLYN PAR
The City Manager indicated the City of Brooklyn Park has prepared an outline of the
discussion held at their joint meeting and asked the Council to review it and concur or
modify the suggested actions and activities. He felt the next step would be to determine key
participants and schedule a second joint meeting including realtors, apartment owners, etc.
Staff could then prepare an implementation plan for the Council's consideration.
Councilmember Pedlar expressed support of a joint effort between Brooklyn Center and
Brooklyn Park, and to move forward with the recommendations by developing a committee.
He commended staff for their work and suggested they contact Brooklyn Park to schedule
another meeting. Councilmembcr Cohen concurred and suggested the meeting be held on
a non- Council meeting night.
Mayor Paulson reported on a conversation he had with Brooklyn Park Councilmember Fees
regarding a summit where all transit entities can meet to discuss transit issues which can
then be taken back to their respective groups and organizations for further input.
Councilmember Cohen asked what action has been taken with suggestions made at the
previous meeting, such as the suggestion to obtain funding to subsidize taxi service for
people with transportation needs. Mayor Paulson responded MTC discussions have been
more along the lines of looking at how to meet the needs of individual communities, not
subsidizing taxi service,
4/27/92
-9-
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
direct the City Manager to work with the City of Brooklyn Park to move forward with
actions and activities indicated in their memorandum and to schedule another joint meeting
later in the year on a non - Council evening. The motion passed unanimously.
G 199] RECY ;LING A -f'0 LISHMENTS TD 1992 7 ASS
The City Manager reported the recycling contractor is operating very well and responds
quickly to any complaints received. Also, recycling charges in Brooklyn Center are among
the lowest in the area. The City Manager reported the City is seeing a significant increase
in recycling and we are making steady progress.
Councilmember Rosene supported increasing curbside recycling to include the collection of
magazines and mixed paper, and for new recycling efforts at municipal buildings. He
questioned the percentage of those recycling. The City Manager Stated he felt it was litl %n
to 85% but would confirm this figure for the Council. At Councilmember Cohen's request,
the City Manager stated he will research commercial and gas station recycling.
Councilmember Rosene indicated he participated in Clean Up Day and was surprised at the
large number of plastic bags and styrofoam collected around the pond by City Hall. The
City Manager reported polystyrene is collected at the City Hall through a joint contract with
three other cities. It was noted the Rotary Club will also be cleaning the pond area.
Councilmember Pedlar reported hospitals have gone back to using styrofoam due to cost
savings and new recycling abilities. He indicated he will provide the City Manager with
information on styrofoam recycling.
HO ITTEE AP INTMENT CRITERIA AND WAT MANAGEMENT
TASK FORCE APPOINTMENTS
The City Manager indicated the Council tabled appointment of the Ad Hoc Water
Management Plan Task Force to allow further consideration of the format and criteria used
in appointing and establishing ad hoc committees.
Mayor Paulson reported he would like to eliminate duplication on committees so more
residents can become involved. He spoke with John Kalligher about appointment and Mr.
Kalligher had indicated he would be amenable to not serving on the Water Management
Task Force. Mayor Paulson indicated Bill Siems has expressed an interest so he would like
to appoint him in place of Mr. Kalligher,
Councilmember Cohen pointed out Jon Perkins also serves an another committee. Mayor
Paulson explained he has not had the opportunity to talk with anyone else and felt it was
important to complete appointment so the Task Force can begin their work.
4/27/92 - 10 -
The City Manager stressed the importance of retaining some flexibility regarding duplication
on coiujiiittees since some may necessitate appointment of representatives from tither
committees.
After Mayor Paulson reviewed qualifications for membership, Graydon Boeck expressed an
interest iii •
a ointment t
PP o this Task
Force. He pointed out, however, that he lives in the
same area as Kristin Mann.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
make the following appointments to the water Management Task Force, Kristin Mann,
5415 East Twin Lake Boulevard; Dan
McGro
arty, 6312 Orchard Avenue North; Jon 3719 72nd Avenue North; Timothy Teas, 7000 Regent Avenue North; Bill Siem Perkins, 6
Colfax Avenue North; Graydon Boeck, 5601 Indiana Avenue; and one more yet to he
determined. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Paulson indicated he would like to see more uniformity with commissions including
their size, appointment procedure, Chair and Vicc -Chair appointment procedure, etc.
Councilmember Cohen stated he felt the Council should be involved with adopting a policy
covering appointments. He also asked that staff prepare a map indicating the geographic
location of everyone currently serving on committees. The Council can then assure all areas
of the City are being represented,
Mayor Paulson reported on the book prepared by Mike Braasch, City intern, regarding
various committees, appointments and vacancies,
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
direct staff to prepare informatiQn regarding appointments as well as a map indicating
location of existing appointees for Council's discussion on appointment philosophy. The
motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Paulson reported Wally Bernards is not interested in serving as the Planning
Commission Chairman, but Barb Kalligher has expressed an interest. He suggested Council
consider appointing Barb Kalligher as Planning Commission Chair.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
appoint Barb Kalligher, 5548 Girard Avenue, as Chair of the Planning Commission, The
motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Paulson announced he received a letter from Jill Sherntt indicating she can no longer
serve on the planning Commission. Reappointment will be considered at a future meeting.
4/27/92
ADMURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott wid seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council
adjourned at 5:17 p.m,
Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor
Recorded and transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
4/27/92 -12-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 11, 1992
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
MAYORAL APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION
DEPT. APPROVAL:
p x
Gerald G. Splinter, City Managir
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUN DIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
•
• RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
APPLICATION
FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION
1. Name
2. Address Phone ��
3. How long have you been a resident?
4, List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to
this appointment:
4
a
f
continue on back -
5�,� Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the
Commission
- continue on back -
6. Are you familiar with the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the
Commission as described in the Zoning Ordinance?
Yes No
7. Are you aware of the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance
(normally twice a month on the 2nd and 4th Thursday nights) , and do you
feel you have the time available to be an active participant?
Yes No
Cgmments:
f
Signature ( �� Da to
Submit to: Mayor
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date MU 11.1992
Agenda Item Number_
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PRESENTATION: a. Senator Bill Luther
b. Representative Phil Carruthers
�y
DEPT. APPROVAL:
�f
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMNIENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
• SUNEM RY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 11, 1992
Agcn& Item Numbcr 1a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning & Inspection
4 .r 166
MANAGERS REVIEW/RECOnaIENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
• SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
•
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 16, 1992
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to
order by Interim Chairperson Wallace Bernards at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson. Wallace Bernards, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Mark
Holmes, Jill Sherritt and Barbara Kalligher. Also present were
Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Recording
Secretary Mary Lou Larsen. Chairperson Bernards noted that
Commissioner Johnson was on vacation and Ella Sander had called to
say she would be unable to attend the meeting and were excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 26 1992
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to
approve the minutes of the March 26, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards,
Commissioners Mann, Holmes, Sherritt and Kalligher. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 92007 ( Budgetel)
Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a request for variance approval to
construct a 12' x 20' storage building 3' from Shingle Creek
Parkway right -of -way line instead of the 25' required by the Zoning
Ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning
Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 92007, attached) .
He explained that there may be other properties that might request
this same type of variance, but they would be to similar
situations. He pointed out the Budgetel situation is unique
because it has a slope in the area where the shed would be placed
which would hide it from public view.
Chairman Bernards asked if a building permit would be applied for
if the variance is approved. The Secretary answered in the
affirmative. Chairperson Bernards asked if the City would be able
to control the type and quality of shed placed on the property.
The Secretary explained language could be included as a condition
of variance approval regarding materials to be used. He stated
aesthetics is the main concern. He explained that the shed will be
8' high and 420 sq. ft., comparable to the some back yard sheds.
He pointed out that the shed will be well hidden and can be built
with materials complimentary to the hotel. He stated the shed will
not be in a sight triangle, therefore, traffic will not be
4 -16 -92 1
obstructed or impacted by the structure. He noted there is a 4 1/2'
screen enclosure for the hotel's dumpster at the northwest corner
of the site and that the proposed shed would be less visible from
Shingle Creek Parkway than this screening device.
Chairperson Bernards asked if the shed would be considered a
nonconforming structure. The Secretary answered that if the
variance is approved, it would not be considered a nonconforming
structure.
Commissioner Holmes asked for clarification of the setback. The
Secretary stated that Budgetel has frontage on three roadways. He
stated he would not recommend a variance for a storage shed if it
were located much further north in the greenstrip because it would
be more visible from public view.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Bernards opened the meeting for a public hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application.
Mr. Ken Garvin, District Representative for Budgetel, explained the
request and submitted pictures for the Commission to review. He
stated the hotel is requesting the variance for the storage shed
because they are in need of storage space for materials now being
stored in the manager's apartment. He explained Budgetel has just
completed a renovation of the exterior of their building and gave
his assurance that the shed will match the exterior of the
building.
Chairperson Bernards asked Mr. Garvin what the hotel would store in
the shed. Mr. Garvin stated that hotel supplies, garden hoses,
etc. would be stored there.
Chairperson Bernards asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
There being none, he called for a motion to close the public
hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There was a motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner
Kalligher to close the public hearing. The motion passed
unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 92007 (Budgetel)
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sherritt to
recommend approval of Application No. 92007 subject to the
following findings and conditions:
1. The extra right -of -way adjacent to the Budgetel site and
the slope within that right -of -way (of Shingle Creek
Parkway) obviate the need for the proposed storage shed
to meet setback requirements. The proposed building
4 -16 -92 2
location actually reduces its impact on the visual
corridor of Shingle Creek Parkway. To require compliance
with the required setback would, therefore, constitute an
unnecessary hardship in this case.
2. The circumstance of a steep slope within the right -of -way
adjacent to the Budgetel site is fairly unique. Similar
situations may be entitled to similar treatment if it can
be shown that the variance standards are met.
3. The circumstance of extra right -of -way containing a steep
slope has been caused by the public agencies which have
created the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange and has not
been caused by anyone presently or formerly having an
interest in the Budgetel site.
4. The proposed storage shed, in the location proposed by
the applicant, will not have an adverse impact on other
property or improvements in the neighborhood.
5. Exterior of the storage shed shall be consistent in
material and appearance with the exterior treatment of
the hotel building.
Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Holmes,
Sherritt and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Secretary reviewed the present status of the Draft Group Home
Ordinance discussed at the last meeting. He stated he is working
with the City Attorney and more discussion is needed to finalize
this ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Kalligher to
adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed
unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Chairperson
4 -16 -92 3
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 92007
Applicant: Budgetel Inn
Location: 6415 James Circle North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests variance approval to construct a 12
storage building 3' from Shingle Creek Parkway right -of -way instead
of the 25' required by the Zoning Ordinance. The property in
question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the Econolodge
inn, on the east by James Circle and vacant C2 zoned property, on
the south by I94, and on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway. The
storage building would be situated about midway between the
southwest and northwest corners of the site, in the greenstrip
adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway. Of note is the fact that the
grade drops off considerably from the level of Shingle Creek
Parkway to the level of the parking lot. The Minnesota Department
of Transportation owns the Shingle Creek Parkway right -of -way in
this area, including a large area (Tract I) that is devoted to the
slope between the street and the Budgetel property.
The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may
grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the
individual property under consideration. The applicant, in the
person of Mr. Ken Garvin, has submitted a letter (attached)
addressing the standards for a variance (also attached). A
recitation of those standards and the applicant's arguments as well
as staff comments follow:
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape,
or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of
land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would
result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if
the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried
out.
Applicant: "At the present time the only area to place a storage
shed without seeking a variance would be on the west side of the
motel, located in the grass area between the motel and the curbing.
This would require the removal of mature landscaping and the
storage shed would be placed right outside of guest room windows.
If located in this area, the building would be very visible from
Shingle Creek Parkway."
Staff: Visibility is a key concern of the applicant. Budgetel
wishes the building to be as invisible as possible. The
proposed location in the greenstrip adjacent to Shingle Creek
Parkway, at the bottom of the slope is out of sight as any location
on the property. We concur that limiting visibility of the storage
April 16 1992 1
p ,
building is in the public interest. The applicant states that
placing the building in the green area on the west side of the
motel constitutes a hardship. The Commission must judge whether
this constitutes a hardship and whether the public objective of
setting buildings back from public right -of -way outweighs in this
case the objective of keeping the building as out of sight as
possible. In this case, the right -of -way adjacent to the west side
of the Budgetel site is taken up with a slope which separates the
Budgetel site considerably from the street and would tend to hide
the proposed structure from view on Shingle Creek Parkway. We
agree that the proposed location serves a public purpose without
doing violence to the purpose of the setback requirement which is
to create visual space along rights -of -way and allow proper
functioning of sites. It should be pointed out that no access to
the Budgetel site is allowed from Shingle Creek Parkway.
Therefore, the second purpose for the setback is not really
applicable here.
(b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance
is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Applicant: "The storage shed is proposed to be placed on the west
edge of our property line. Between our property line and Shingle
Creek Parkway is a large slope. When driving on Shingle Creek
Parkway this slope will help hide the storage shed from public
view."
Staff: The large slope within the right -of -way adjacent to the
side of the Budgetel site where the storage shed is to be built is
a relatively unique condition, although there are some other
parcels adjacent to the freeway with similar slope conditions
adjacent to them. It would, in our opinion, certainly be
appropriate to consider similar variances for other properties in
similar situations, provided the impact on the visual corridor is
similarly negligible and there is no access along that side of the
property. We do not recommend an ordinance amendment at this time,
pending consideration by the City Council. An ordinance amendment
might be difficult to draft, trying to take into account unique
situations that may arise in the future. We believe it may be more
appropriate to look at each situation on its own merits.
(c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of
this ordinance and has not been created by any persons
presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of
land.
Applicant: "The hardship is related to the required setback from
Shingle Creek Parkway or the piece of ground labeled Tract I."
Staff: The applicant refers to Tract I which is part of the
April 16, 1992 2
Shingle Creek Parkway right -of -way. Tract I was created in the
1970's to define the land which would contain the slope between the
roadway and the Budgetel property. It has no function except to
contain the slope. If Tract I were a privately owned parcel, the
required setback for the storage shed would be the 3' which the
applicant proposes in this case. The hardship in this case results
from the extra right -of -way needed for the slope, a fact which was
not created by the property owner.
(d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other land or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of
land is located.
Applicant: "By granting this variance it will not be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other land improvements in
the neighborhood. The placing of the storage shed in the proposed
area would be the ideal location because of accessibility to the
hotel staff and would be hidden from public view because of the
slope of the land. Once again the only piece of ground the shed
would border is Tract I. This ground I believe is owned by the
Minnesota Highway Dept."
Staff: The proposed storage shed will have minimal visual impact
on the Shingle Creek Parkway corridor. In fact, it would probably
be more visible, both to motel occupants and drivers, if it were
located near the building in observance of the setback requirement.
We do not believe that the proposed storage shed poses any threat
to the public welfare in the location proposed.
The applicant concludes his letter by stating that there is a need
for additional storage space and that not having it creates severe
managing problems, fire hazards, and a very disorganized placing of
motel supplies. An alternative to the storage building, of course,
is to take one of the guest rooms and turn it into a storage room.
%The applicant has indicated that the motel is often full and that
the elimination of one room would constitute a hardship. We doubt
that this would meet the definition of a hardship as that term is
used in the Zoning Ordinance. However, we do not see the proposed
variance as doing any real harm to the public welfare. It may be
a case where the public benefits from observing the setback
requirement are exceeded by the private costs of compliance with
the ordinance standard.
Conclusion and Recommendation
In conclusion, we believe that the standards for a variance can be
met in this case. We recommend that the application be approved,
in light of the following findings:
1. The extra right -of -way adjacent to the Budgetel site and
the slope within that right -of -way (of Shingle Creek
Parkway) obviate the need for the proposed storage shed
April 16 1992 3
to meet setback requirements. The proposed building
location actually reduces its impact on the visual
corridor of Shingle Creek Parkway. To require compliance
with the required setback would, therefore, constitute an
unnecessary hardship in this case.
2. The circumstance of a steep slope within the right -of -way
adjacent to the Budgetel site is fairly unique. Similar
situations may be entitled to similar treatment if it can
be shown that the variance standards are met.
3. The circumstance of extra right -of -way containing a steep
slope has been caused by the public agencies which have
created the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange and has not
been caused by anyone presently or formerly having an
interest in the Budgetel site.
4. The proposed storage shed, in the location proposed by
the applicant, will not have an adverse impact on other
property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
A roved by,
Ronald A. Warren,
Director of Planning and Inspections
April 16, 1992 4
INN
7815 Nicollet Ave. So. / Bloomington. MIN 55420
6IZ -881 -7311
3/17/92
To Whom it may concern:
This letter is regarding the application for a variance for a
storage shed for the Brooklyn Center Budgetel Inn.
Evidence of qualifications are as follows:
A. At the present time the only area to place a storage shed
without seeking a variance would be on the west side of the
motel, located in the grass area between the motel and the
curbing. This would require the removal of mature landscaping
and the storage shed would be placed right outside of guest
room windows. If located in this area, the building would be
very visible from Shingle Creek Parkway.
B. The storage shed is proposed to be placed on the west edge of
our property line. Between our property line and Shingle
Creek Parkway is a large slope. When driving on Shingle Creek
Parkway this slope will help hide the storage shed from public
view.
C. The hardship is related to the required setback from Shingle
Creek Parkway or the piece of ground labeled Tract I.
D. By granting this variance it will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land improvements in the
neighborhood. The placing of the storage shed in the proposed
area would be the ideal location because of accessibility to the
hotel staff and would be hidden from public view because of the
slope of the land. Once again the only piece of ground the shed
would border is Tract I. This ground I believe is owned by the
Minnesota Highway Dept.
In reviewing our variance application, I hope you will see the motels
need for the additional storage space. By not having the additional
space it has created severe managing problems, fire hazards, and a
very disorganized placing of motel supplies.
If you should happen to need additional information, please feel
free to contact me at the number listed above.
Sinc rely,
en G rvin
District Director
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCES
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
Anyone contemplating request for a variance from the g q om e Ordinance should
consult with the Planning staff, prior to submitting an Application to the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals, for the purposes of familiarization with applicable
ordinance standards and evaluation of the particular circumstances.
A prospective applicant shall provide documents and information, as requested by
the Secretary, to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or to the City Council. An
application must be submitted fourteen ( days prior t
( ) o the regular meeting Y P g g of the
Board.
In instances where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of this zoning
ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and
distinctive to an individual property under consideration, the City Council shall
have the power to grant variances, in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in conjunction with the
unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property must be the proximate
cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or his predecessor
in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant
variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their
strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and
distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board
shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use
that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected
person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after
demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met:
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land
involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result,
as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict
letter of the regulations were to be' carried out.
(b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is
based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance
is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property
within the same zoning classification.
(c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this
ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or
formerly having an interest in the parcel of land.
(d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose
conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance
with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties.
P
/ I Form No. 20 -OVER-
1 ��� 1 � ` ` 1111■ 11111' 111111 I1
111111
'�,�, . • / 111■ �■ ■ , ,.
- - � 1111' 11 11 i1 11111 1111 11
���►• 1 � 1� • • �� 11111
�� � � , ♦j� 11111 1 11/ . 11 III 1 1 111 � 111
�� ° : ♦� 1 . / IIIIi� /111 1111 ��� III 11 1111' 111
■� _�_�! = 1 1111 11 ..�- ♦ � ♦• i� I � ; 11111 111111 111
1 �� �■ 11 ' 111
♦ ♦ ♦� ♦ ♦� ♦� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� 111 11 ; 1 111 11/ 11
11 ■ 11 11 It I � 11 111 /I� � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� 11 11 ■■ 1 111 1
It■ 11 ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ 11111 oi l '
11 _ •. ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦�
' 1 � • , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ' ' ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� 1 '11 1111111
/■ �� 1 ,. '• • ♦ = ♦ ♦♦ • 111 1 • 1 I .. ,�
1 ■ 1 �� ■ 1 ♦� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� ♦� ♦� ♦� ,.. 1 / 11 �� 00 �..
1 11111 � -, ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦• x/11/ i�l '��► 1
11- ■111 IG�i `� ♦ ♦,� ♦,. ♦,.� - _..�...�� �=
1 11111 1111 ■ , : • ®I
�. � ■11 .1 ■ea
■ ■ ■ ■
■ 11 ■11111 ■�� ��
111 X111 11111 .•
11 111 ■111 111111 '�
1x11 1 � 111111111 �
11111 1 11
y
.r.e....reer
t 7� F PROPOSED DRAINAGE fl
i. i r /!.`�• �-� c e ^�;.. v -�74n 2a d*<'oM ;S - - _ UTILITY EASEMENT
cA2A _ t rF d er
V r ' ` .�... / 9 ..,�• �9. bu Wept N ,t . ` 4r� 'F us t � J i
_ (X*s � 1 ,• ,� � \, • it � �, ^'? _ \s . � c - •'1 � c � M AD Q
. •>rX. �vµ �_. a � '�- .; f � � rr -' _��. ``'i y ~• _ i � s,� o , a l•_7
.. "i C i • t' s ,�:`'^ t _�_: rc `+- -�.b - , •`iyr h ' j i t ..
• f - vr� Io4 4 9 '.�' q f \ s r "� 1 - ° - -` � �` .., - � �'� ,
i'
lu
' _; �t0 . � / yRd / _' _ x D'�'°OS ue.�rYpt G ; - - _ h ll � %� 4t \�� \ * o � -
.... i � Q O p . - j _ _ #� • " . � _ � _ .J i - ' b+db , . � 1 i J•.:. 1w - � - � I
- '' � • �' . ru fir- � •�. _. SZ [�'4 nt�ZG°e : � 7 � �.• ,�..
L.O \T
�V A/p Q !' a 2 ,s,., `�., �•?ee =_� ° • rte 8R
U �h :r, / - / �2�• �! d s 1
rQ 2 �_ Nry `� �... / us
' CAM T • q c^ °. e,d• r \, l
to
v4 tov
le
7 v 7 ,
/ S �O•., tia4� -1 ad. di'27
1s•3 *• 3S /e Z� � t pr, `'•.� c( e,�•' ^• yti t •' � ! { I � � ,V -- _____
s TRAC
00, sj1 Y�a• c ,'� �� et`e. / _ r r.v. see. ro `
i •
ly F4 4 n 424
Y O
2•
It
a . o .
r
�
fA
tN� K Gtry
SCALE: r �'O+ APPROVE13 OY:
`►� DRAWN BY
REWSEO
DRAW WG NUMBER
1
- - �`►HN1C0 OM MO. IOOCSI CtIAA M1Nf •
r J
�N l:S k} ) A '� � a � � R . , .}l •. / M ' t 6 � ±�
`*'.+. , t Y1" . * r�� Xy y " �' 4 , �"•�� rt � « �' ;� j e yv +r i i'r y y a•, kr �.o�fy�tt'1 ,�,;, f�,�' ! � f r 4 ; •.
�; «� .81, ,� F. r �M+�h�•,',�k�},f L� «! 1, F r yI;F , ?y f i t � 4,gY#+9� � ? :� ,`'FJ+.[4F r A r � ' ' ' Z .' �. t '
R' �. � �,A ! f� a �i � � a1 � '� #y # t� F +. t � r a :7 A e ' •ice .. ! A
' ` ^`. F� t � b� t 1 , i R Pi� o,i ':� a>- � ! � a � � w� 1 .� °�` � • '7. �• � /. a � •5.,,� � .� S,
'�'.• >, j �l Y�,tJ, �' � tt ' ,' t �y q f,l,> J+ f )' i'p'., M :. b �ja� : • ` ;.
f" i S { �i9r 9 r � `r� y .� 6 t 1'1 r f e m ,� .' w t. e r'
, :�s • 1�r 9r #ti a 1 A�f la
4,
!, S C i y I � A i< � ! r 'k a , f w L• t:: t' r. - n + r � ',
$ .a, •:.t j - . c `t::i:L+'
� J� � 4 i �,.'*; 7�'t` L ;ry � � y t:'� c a h•� - v
�''� v� j f ? � F�e✓v. � e - *s: af� ,3.,� � ;1„'. �R���.•.
I
A
� X4$. -.. .,.. �;.,. ..•arew S .`�° `,�.. ..,..,:� � .'•: -. >r s ,,. # µ C
' ti �'�i.�.� ^- iWMRd+Ir+F;tkY.. u ' i `$ ��tr• -.; '. .:.:.. ,.:, ;.:.:.,.... ,, ... a...* Fy �.
y,,�j ,, b : ♦,... � "�� : f .:.. .�. ., +R' 4 ry , ,� j k v ` � 4 > q, 4 1' .1 a'"
{ .S'. J � _ ;fir i fib. '�• � • ti-, f r'-.
a
-� 'a•� +,r �r: t+pY's # �;, �� Ati i.' t aF9 y 'L atitiyiiS,
• � �r ,,J ,r g •� t#,a'le,pW�x". v � � �, P!' ,,' }?ri,r � _� �`. ^.. 'Sta
K t �,(�.- '�: ° �110x� 1 4 T �3 ;� � r p,, 4.. �' i, ,.. - � `.�''heit'r�a'�' -��' -
t�'��; '• y r�y yt �! i � �eS s.4��,+'{'"y ��Y �eti�v �,�: ',y s. s C!$tsy�a;#r �,,.. +•�► ; { t e ,sss
� , ` �TTT�� ..'�''�' � �+�H'F"9.� �F�"a8�74��� � �'. C �. h " s '2• ► v� " : +r• t.. � '"� �'}�1�.
�ks t•° �� � "5frnn �� "��:�N �'+� 3r"F� "�f'�.r #` S#j2..at' �. h 4 v/� ,� � � - - 9"�ti�..r Zs"t 1t
a 2 . rs,� "',; a;E s. f•,�;, 4 a�y 'ir1 iNlk 4Z S '�. 1.: r^ .a�+.r+!a^,..•t G f ,� . _
'; 7e +s,' y: •Fd, i f.:..y �, � .. N1�f'•d 1 ay ar.,/� �s �. r � -,c±; �..�Y �; ; . � •E. � s.� � z l
}�{ �'�,, '� �. •fig -
�49 �l 5••. "/, 0 �!4', y .¢`. - RaZ,ay�ti .moo a ir F � - 's
' �. e..'+Y t'� +.�' @.. d •f` Ell
�a
�IX ^ ° li�.,� it i_ °� :� ;. ' "�e�P�''i' ` R �'t�L Km ° r 3��. t' r# � ,a �` �r�}: ♦ � " -•. ,r��w
.Y 'a+A' re"� � b ! �i - �� i.,: �y;�,.. ��'.r '' 1. �y #�� Z?ay�'� !,; �i�. ,�� '���� t. ` + �iI�F� ' � "'i l i �� S„ � �..�: 4' `���e#C. +`�•"��*
:
k.. p d �.a, '� �, ,.� , ,'r *rd's i "� �^ �' . ` �`' 'i+d�R . " `*�{� i. =u�PSti' •e.wi � e � ,, � .>. a%>•:: , 3- ..`�: `' �. i � =�'�` � r. ;:
x. � N ��:t� e�,j•, af. � + h .;.- � �. .'� •�' § � �,,; �t`.•.s. �'� �. �`� � +..:' +• a� ?l +� ' � '< , , s.e � .. ' , +'1r
r � * W '.� {.!t/r'.�t�, �•#L" � � , sX ,�' •*�{;J!>��S,M ` 1 y '��� "a1S �" �� •C 4 * �y ; + Y' •P"Sd '. }} Wes? �C� ,F.. ` 2 ? � +���"+y`La��i � � '+.
.t•{� ,. Tfk'.., x.Auz'yr. .y �. -' M ..���W�.r� i "k ;�,r ` � ,`- �`.!�?^�,'�� �:.:�. f �:r3� �-;
Via: �w ; ,� Y• 7,rM tV
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/1
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Planning Commission Application No. 92007 - Budgetel
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPR
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x )
•
Planning Commission Application No. 92007 is a request for variance
approval to construct a 12' x 20' storage building 3' from Shingle
Creek right -of -way instead of the 25' required by the Zoning
Ordinance. This application was considered by the Planning
Commission at its April 16, 1992 meeting and approval was
recommended. Attached are minutes and information sheets from
that meeting, a letter from the applicant, variance standards, map
of the area, site plan of the property and drawings showing the
type of accessory building to be placed on the property for the
City Council's review.
Recommendation
Approval of the application was recommended by the Planning
Commission subject to the five findings and conditions listed on
pages 2 and 3 of the minutes from the Planning Commission's April
16, 1992 meeting. The application was tabled by the City Council
at its April 27, 1992 meeting at the applicant's request and is now
recommended for consideration at the May 11, 1992 City Council
meeting.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 /1 1/92
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FINAL PLAT FEE
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy Knap' , Di for of Public Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:,,.:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /att ' ed W
�k�i c �k�k�k�K�k�k�k�kx�k�k�l e�kye�k�k> k�! e�k�k�k�! ex�! e�K�F�k�k> K�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�kycac�k�k�k�k�; e�e�e> k�k�! e�k�kyeae�k�k�c�K�k�kye�k�k�k�k�kxx�kxc�exxx�k� !eyeseic
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
Section 15 -104 (A)(1)(b) of the City ordinances requires that prior to dividing
• any tract of land an owner or subdivider must pay to the City Clerk a cash fee to
cover platting costs. This fee is currently being administered by the Planning
and Inspection Department as a preliminary plat fee. This fee is intended to
cover the cost of preliminary work with developers, and processing of a
preliminary plat by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Planning
Department has indicated that the existing preliminary plat fee of $100 is not
sufficient to cover these costs, and through the financial prioritization process
will be recommending that it be increased. The fee is also not adequate to
recover the costs of processing the final plat, and the Engineering Department,
through the prioritization process, has recommended that a separate final plat
fee be established.
The preliminary plat fee may at one time have been adequate to cover the entire
cost of platting. However, over the years numerous legal requirements have been
enacted, primarily by state statute, which increase the complexity of the
process, and the City's potential liability should it be less than vigorous in
administering the process. This process is defined in great detail in state
statutes and city ordinances. In approving the final plat, the City Engineer
must spend considerable time with the developer, the developer's surveyor and
legal counsel, and the City Attorney. Agreements such as subdivision and utility
maintenance agreements must be prepared by staff. For parcels larger than five
acres, a review by the Watershed Commission must be incorporated into the
process.
Under current City policy, developers are required to reimburse the City only for
the actual City Attorney's cost of reviewing the plat and rendering a title
• opinion. Other than the $100 preliminary platting fee, no other fee is charged
to recoup what could be considerable labor provided by the City for the benefit
• of the developer. It should be noted that in Brooklyn Center, where the vast
amount of public right of way dedication has already occurred, the City often
accrues no direct benefit at all from the platting process, other than simply the
protection of the public's interest and the potential indirect public benefits
which may (or may not) result from development, while the developer usually
stands to profit financially from the transaction. The City incurs these costs
whether or not a final plat is ever filed by the developer with the County; in
some cases developers are simply speculating, or "floating an idea."
Implementation
Implementation of a fee would require an ordinance change to provide for separate
preliminary platting and final platting fees. This change would have several
advantages. First, it helps to clearly delineate the preliminary and final
platting process, which are two separate processes with separate goals and
requirements. Second, it breaks what could be a large fee into two smaller fees.
This would reduce the financial burden on smaller developers, often persons
wishing only to subdivide a large lot, who may not have cash up front, or who may
find part way through the process that the plat is not feasible. Third, it would
provide more flexibility to the City to respond to statutory or other changes
which might increase (or decrease) City costs. And fourth, most cities have
separate preliminary and final platting fees, so we would be more consistent with
procedures in other cities.
The attached ordinance incorporates suggested language changes.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Review the recommended language, and conduct a first reading of the ordinance.
•
i
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
19 _, at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an amendment to Chapter 15 regarding platting procedures.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 569 -3300 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FINAL PLAT FEE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 15 of the City ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 15 -104 (A)(1(b) A cash fee in an amount set forth by City
Council resolution. This fee will be used for the expense of the City in
connection with approval or disapproval of said preliminary plat[ and any
final plat which may thereafter be submitted].
Section 15 -105 (A)(1) The owner or subdivider shall file with the
City Clerk six copies of the Final Plat and a cash fee in an amount set
forth by City Council resolution not later than six months after the date
of approval of the preliminary plan; otherwise the preliminary plan and
final plat will be considered void unless an extension is requested in
writing by the subdivider and for good cause granted by the Council. The
owner or subdivider shall also submit at this time an up -to -date certified
abstract of title or registered property report and other such evidence as
the City Attorney may require showing title or control in the applicant.
Prior to release by the City of a final, approved plat, the owner shall
reimburse the City the full amount of legal fees incurred by the City in
obtaining a review or opinion of title.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Section 3. This ordinance shall not apply to any plat for which a
preliminary plat application has been filed with the Planning Commission by the
effective date of this ordinance.
Adopted this day of ,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/11/92
Agenda Item Numberj�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR VACATING A STREET, ALLEY, OR EASEMENT
��k} e �k�k�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�k�k�kyc�! c�k��k�k�k�k��k��k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�k��k�k�; c�! c�k�k�K�k�k�k�kx�K�k�k�k�kx� !cxxaesc�cacx�(c�!e>;c>cyc
DEPT. APPROVAL:
g, All 4
Sy Knapp,' irector of Public Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No cornments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
xxx�; c> ! c x� e �k�k�k�k> k> k> k�k�! ca��; e�k�k�k> K�! c�cae�k��kM�k�k�k�k�k��k> k�k�k�k�kM�k�k�k��k�k�k�k�k�k�k�K��K�k> c�! cx�k�K�k >k�K�k�k�xxxxxrcx�;c�c�!cxx�e
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
State statute and the city charter provide the City with the authority to vacate
the public's interest in land dedicated as street, alley, or easement. This is
done through the ordinance process, necessitating legal and ordinance publication
costs. This vacation process is usually done at the request of a property owner
who stands to benefit from such a vacation. Such vacations occur on average two
or three times per year.
Engineering staff recommend that the City recoup the costs of providing this
service by charging a vacation fee. Such a fee is charged in many other cities.
Staff recommends a fee of $125, which is about the average. This fee is intended
to cover legal and publication costs, plus staff time to review the proposed
vacation with city staff and, in the case of easements, private utilities. This
fee would be implemented by amending the ordinances to specify that a fee may be
charged. The attached ordinance incorporates suggested language changes.
The following is an estimated breakdown of the average costs of providing this
service:
1. Review and confirm exact legal description of property to be vacated;
review dedication intent at time of platting (1 hour)
2. Prepare first reading of ordinance ('h hour)
3. Prepare correspondence with private utilities ('h hour)
4. Review public and private utility responses; review consistency with
Comprehensive Plan; review with Planning & Inspections (1 hour)
S. Publish notice of 2nd reading
6. Prepare 2nd reading of ordinance ('h hour)
10
• Total time by engineer: 3 hours @ $35 (hourly rate + 40% FB & overhead)
Total time by clerical staff: 31 hour at $18.75 (" ")
Cost of publication: $30 -50, depending on complexity of legal description
Total cost: Engineer $105
Clerical 10
Publication 30 -50
TOTAL $145 -165
TABLE 1
Vacation Fees, Reporting Cities
City Fee City Fee City Fee
Apple Valley $100 Hastings $100 No St Paul $125
Bayport 75 Hopkins 75 Oakdale 125
Bloomington 75 Inver Grove Hts 75 Orono 250
• Burnsville 100 Maple Grove 250 Prior Lake 100
Champlin 150 Maplewood 58 Richfield 350
Chanhassen 100 Mendota Hts 250 Roseville 200
Crystal 75 Minneapolis 300 Shakopee 75
Deephaven 50+ Minnetonka 50 Shorewood costs
costs
Eagan 300 Mound 150 St Louis Park 150
Eden Prairie 100 Mounds View 50 Stillwater 100
Edina 75 New Brighton 110 So St Paul 100
Fridley 150 New Hope 200
Source: Municipal License and Permit Survey The Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities, June, 1991
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Review the recommended language, and conduct a first reading of the ordinance.
//6 p
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
, 19 _, at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an amendment to Chapter 25 regarding procedures for vacation of streets,
alleys, or easements.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 569 -3300 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR VACATING A STREET, ALLEY, OR EASEMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 25 of the City ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 25 -701. VACATIONS. Any person requesting vacation of any part of
a_public street, alley, or easement shall make application to the Director
of Public Works or designee using such forms and providing such information
as prescribed and shall pay a cash fee such fee to be established by
Council from time to time. All such vacations shall be made by ordinance.
No street or alley or part thereof may be vacated without the approval of
at least four - fifths (4/5) of the members of the Council.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Section 3. This ordinance shall not apply to any vacation for which a
vacation application has been filed with the Director of Public Works or designee
by the effective date of this ordinance.
Adopted this day of ,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/11/92
Agenda Item Number_
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING PETITIONS FOR SIDEWALK ON 59TH
AVENUE NORTH, BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TO XERXES AVENUE NORTH
DEPT. APPROVAL:
s� l
Sy Knap , Director of Public Works - -- MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMNIENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
At its March 23, 1992 meeting, the Council approved installation of various two
and four way stop signs along 59th and 60th Avenues North, Brooklyn Boulevard to
Xerxes Avenue North. The Council also directed staff to send individual
petitions to property owners on the north side of 59th Avenue to determine
interest in installation of a sidewalk.
The nine property owners on the north side were sent individual petitions to
indicate their support for or opposition to the proposed improvement. Eight of
the nine property owners have responded to the petition, with six voting against
the sidewalk and two voting for the sidewalk.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
If the Council wishes to proceed with the improvement, a resolution establishing
the project is provided for consideration. If the Council does not wish to
proceed with the project, approve a motion discontinuing further consideration of
the improvement.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1992 -13, INSTALLATION OF
SIDEWALK, NORTH SIDE OF 59TH AVENUE, BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TO
XERXES AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the safety of
citizens will be improved by installation of a concrete sidewalk on the north
side of 59th Avenue North, from Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes Avenue North.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. Improvement Project No. 1992 -13, Installation of Sidewalk, North
Side of 59th Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes Avenue North, is
hereby established.
2. The City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare plans and
specifications for said improvement.
3. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the MSA
Fund No. 2911.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
1- Do s
1 x y r.xt s 1 (r (75) 5949
T (58) W 5949 j S548 3193 n 193 n =93
x cgr6 apt n S141 3 93
1$54 (0 5949 r 1]193 I]S 93 Q W
_ - 0 Q (1127
y es z (94) (121) 5943 n
n (109) 5942
,------ "' -___ -- ry • e 9 (76) S94d 5942 M1 31 e9 5913 lii ee ns.w
YN 5560 ° 0 1 (71) al= 5943 5941 1]S ee n e9 ` 131°° 3 n '6 _ 3
ae 1 Y SSS0
(�) '� ? _ _"� ` ° - - ° nt ee Issm •,]tea (126) (113) -
(' lu cn
P) _
lu v 5917 5335 a
.S3J6 133. as X�
? d 5936 lu v v v 5937 - 111 C
Y ;3S e5 13105 1 .n x�
} u n as Y "O , = n ' (125) Ct , la)
o T N Is 12---
(1077 (96) Y 5931
` -• f m�y i5 ~ (89) (78) 195/ r-, 5910 5931 5930F :]xn
1 1) rn (J (6iJ 5931 m S930 z nin nin ;�
C
1 30 n
_V 31
ri n W �-
1 r n1n � n` n m
II -.,90 v� Q 1. w o (97) (its) SS25~
3 , F ra9•la'¢ Y� G 1. fi (68) O (79) 5923 Sy24 (IOfiJ S92S LL• S92S 07 1) 0 2) S92S 5924 niel Ina, 02 3
° (105) (98) (63) 59/8 87) (80) 59/B 13 tp 5919 S919 3119 1]S t9 :SD t -
11 7800X9'1 t n 99 (117) 5913 ~
(IOaJ IT t (86) (81) S912 59/5 nSR
( ^5912 (69) (fia) SS li r 1912 niR 'SR
aR
1 Si A 7E 13ST 1]SR I31R
I
' a
° (12 1) 5907
(85) (62) 5907 5905 (103) (100) 5907„ SStl6 pigs
z' (58) (55) 5907 5905 r n is
. , , RS 75 31 t] '. .
r
!1i 75 -------
3 3593 1 _ �wr•
1
9 ) R
5900 115.
i
� I I .. .o -.. y e l p ❑•• 1
- pVF -- N
AAVVf�_ ,15 ]tt 4
1,,
let. 1 I 1
151 9, , .�-� 1 330! (13) (107 SB41
SBf2 (97 (6) SB4l 5842 (5) (2) o ( S
a 1 (a0) I 4 (14) 5842
1 a SB42 I
v
=NO a D.—
YES _ COMPILED USING UL T IMAP' S
Y x x v ,TZ ',�'>I ASEMMEN AREA C177 OF
STORM SENER DISTRICT BOUNDARY INIT'AL PRIMARY DATA SOURCE
AC3EAGc LS U SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
— - — '— ' — ' — HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
5 w ra c 5= v.y i 5'e Na 5 c ------------ - - - - -- WATERSH DISTRICT BOUNDARY PUBLIC SERVICE, DEPARTMEtJ i
i — 7 ---' -j -- '" ) I ................... INCREMENT BOUNDARY AND PUBLIC RECORDS, SURVEY
- l
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Dane 5/11/92
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
DISCUSSION ITEM: Recommendations from Human Rights and Resources Commission
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Geralyn R. crone, Personnel Coordinator
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
The human rights and resources commission made the following recommendations to the city
council at its April meeting. Excerpts from the meeting minutes are attached.
1. The City of Brooklyn Center should become a member of the Minnesota League of Human
Rights Commissions ( MLHRC).
The MLHRC is comprised of human rights commissions from throughout the state. Many
of these commissions are involved in the no -fault grievance process, and the MLHRC
provides training and information on this process. (The no -fault grievance process is a
method of resolving human rights complaints at a local level rather than at the state level.
This is not a mandated local program, and the State Human Rights Department responds
to all complaints not handled at the local level. The purpose of having local communities
provide the no -fault grievance process is to ease the state's case load burden and to provide
a more responsive alternative for local residents. All expenses related to the no -fault
process are absorbed by the local jurisdiction.)
The MLHRC also serves as an informational resource for local commissions and sponsors
annual conferences on such topics as cultural diversity and leadership in human rights.
Commissioner Julie Eoloff of the Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission
currently serves on the board of the MLHRC. She provides updates on activities of the
MLHRC at monthly commission meetings and has generated some ideas for the
commission.
Brooklyn Center has not been a dues paying member of the MLHRC in the past, and the
commission has recommended that the City join this organization. 1992 dues for Brooklyn
Center, based on population, are $122.77.
The commission has suggested that if necessary, this request could be forwarded to the
financial task force for review.
2. Schedule a joint meeting of the city council and city advisory commissions.
The commission has expressed a desire to become better acquainted with city council
members, city staff, and other advisory commissioners. A joint meeting could be set,
perhaps on an annual basis, to discuss what is happening in the City and to learn about
activities of the various commissions. A variety of options were suggested depending on the
availability of resources, ranging from a dinner meeting to an evening session with a few
refreshments. A logical time to hold the joint meeting would be in about February of each
year when new council members and advisory commissioners have started their terms.
However, an initial meeting might be scheduled this fall if the city council approves of it.
The commission suggested this item could also be forwarded to the financial task force for
its consideration.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Respond to the following recommendations from the human rights and resources commission:
1. The City of Brooklyn Center should become a member of the MLHRC.
2. Schedule a joint meeting of the city council and city advisory commissions.
u
(' 'Al,
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 8, 1992
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission met in
regular session and was called to order by Vice - Chairperson Eckman
at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Vice- Chairperson Eckman, Commissioners Carmody, Eoloff, Achtelik
and Windsor. Also present were City Councilmember Dave Rosene and
Recording Secretary Geralyn Barone.
Chairperson Stoderl and Commissioner Larsen were excused from this
evening's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 11, 1992
There was a motion by Commissioner Carmody and seconded by
Commissioner Achtelik to approve the minutes of the March 11,
1992, meeting as submitted. The motion passed.
UPDATE ON MINNESOTA LEAGUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS
Commissioner Eoloff said the Minnesota League of Human Rights
Commissions ( MLHRC) will drop the City from the MLHRC if the City
does not pay its 1992 dues. Vice - Chairperson Eckman said, in
light of the City's budget cuts, she questioned whether or not the
City should pay these dues. Commissioner Eoloff suggested the
networking and ideas generated from the MLHRC are valuable, and
Commissioner Carmody agreed. Commissioner Eoloff suggested the
City could join the MLHRC and then decide if it does not want to
belong next year. Commissioner Eoloff noted September 19 is the
annual conference for the MLHRC in Crystal, and the theme will be
"Leadership in Human Rights ".
There was a motion by Commissioner Carmody and seconded by
Commissioner Windsor to recommend to the city council that the
City pay 1992 membership dues for the Minnesota League of Human
Rights Commissions. The motion passed.
Councilmember Rosene suggested the city council should notify the
financial task force of this request.
Commissioner Eoloff said in the March 18, 1992, Brooklyn Center
Sun Post newspaper and also in the Star Tribune and the St. Paul
paper, articles appeared from the president of MLHRC encouraging
04 -08 -92 -1-
LF
involvement in fighting hate crimes. As a result of this article,
some groups have come forward expressing a desire to work on civil
rights activities with the MLHRC.
Commissioner Eoloff said, with regard to the battle on the no-
fault grievance process, the State Department of Human Rights is
planning Level I training on the Human Rights Act. Level II
training is about becoming a mediator, and this has not yet been
set. Councilmember Rosene asked for clarification of what the no-
fault grievance process is. Commissioner Eoloff said local human
rights commissions were developed to serve as mediators in the
community to prevent cases from being handled at the State level,
which in turn saves the State money. Councilmember Rosene asked
why the City of Brooklyn Center has not been involved in this
process in the past, and Commissioner Carmody said there is a
concern regarding personal liability of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Eoloff said MLHRC officials say there is no
liability. Vice - Chairperson Eckman suggested if there is no
chance of getting sued, she would have some interest in being
involved in this process. Commissioner Carmody wondered if
complaints typically handled by the no -fault grievance process
could be handled by mediation (through the North Hennepin
Mediation Project). Commissioner Eoloff said she could have a
representative from the MLHRC come in and explain the process to
the commission. The Recording Secretary said she could check with
the city attorney on any legal liability there might be for
commissioners.
There was a motion by Commissioner Carmody and seconded by
Commissioner Eoloff to invite someone from the MLHRC to come to
the next commission meeting to speak about the no -fault grievance
process. The motion passed.
CHILDREN'S ISSUES
Councilmember Phil Cohen arrived at the meeting and thanked the
commission for inviting him. He asked for a background on the
commission's concerns regarding children's issues. Vice -
Chairperson Eckman said the commission would be looking at
children's issues, but is not sure of in which areas Councilmember
Cohen would like the commission to work. Councilmember Cohen
proceeded to describe his interest in helping children. In
relation to housing issues, he said in the 1970s there was quite
a bias in housing against parents with children, especially single
parents. He noted the problems with acquiring affordable housing.
He said recent Success By Six studies have shown there are a lot
of barriers, especially for single parents, to achieve
independence. Councilmember Cohen said there is a need to address
health care, transportation, day care, and other issues related to
needs of families. He said it was evident that there is a lot of
interest in addressing children's issues, but there are not a lot
of people lobbying for children. Councilmember Cohen said those
involved at the local level see the problems (usually first seen
04 -08 -92 -2-
I I k
Lu Tulpll
x
Cohen said there is an attitude that there are not problems in the
suburbs, and he noted this has been part of the battle although
inroads are being made.
Councilmember Rosene asked what the higher priorities should be -
becoming involved in the legislative process or determining what
services are already offered in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember
Cohen suggested this could be done on a dual tract, although the
need is much greater than services available. Councilmember Cohen
said he feels there are "Band -Aid" services being provided. He
noted to expand programs that are underfunded, it is necessary to
get a source of money. Councilmember Rosene asked if the
commission should send out letters on its own authority or send
requests through the city council. Councilmember Cohen noted the
process has been for the commission to make recommendations to the
city council and have the council pass a resolution. He added
special interest of the commission will lend credibility to the
recommendations.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Carmody said it would have been nice to have been
notified of the joint meeting of the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn
Center city councils. She said she does not feel the city council
is very approachable, and there is a distance between the council
and citizens. Commissioner Eoloff suggested it might be
worthwhile to have a joint meeting of all the commissioners and
the city council to talk about upcoming issues for the year.
Councilmember Cohen noted the joint city council meeting had been
a discussion item on the city council agenda for several weeks
before it was actually scheduled, and it was also on cable
television. He suggested it could also have been put in the city
newsletter. He noted the Osseo schools send mailings to "thought
leaders ", and he suggested advisory commissioners should get some
information on what is going on in the City. Councilmember Cohen
said at city council meetings, the configuration of the council
chambers creates an automatic problem for being approachable. He
suggested if the council is moved out of those chambers, a more
user friendly system should be arranged. He added no one should
feel they cannot call their elected officials.
A discussion ensued on why people are moving out of Brooklyn
Center. Commissioner Carmody suggested one reason people are
moving out is because of the crime. Councilmember Cohen suggested
what needs to be done is to promote what is good about the
community. He added everyone remembers the negative.
Commissioner Achtelik, who is a real estate agent, said since 1987
she has noticed in open houses that agents are getting feedback
from prospective clients that there are concerns about crime and
drugs in the City. Councilmember Cohen asked what realtors are
saying, and Commissioner Achtelik said the negative perceptions
are coming from the buyers. She noted there are nice houses in
04 -08 -92 -5-
MUL'I U
Brooklyn Center which are not selling for the same price as they
were five years ago. She added there is a need for better PR in
producing a better image of Brooklyn Center than what is being
published in the newspapers. Commissioner Achtelik said there is
a need to provide information to our own residents to make them
feel good. She added the City of Brooklyn Park put together a
packet that is available for listing agents. Councilmember Cohen
noted it is a good idea to put some information together for
realtors. Commissioner Achtelik said she has tried to meet with
the city manager to suggest just that.
Commissioner Achtelik also suggested that the city should ease up
on enforcing the sign ordinance regarding real estate signs.
Councilmember Cohen remembered this has come up in the past, and
Commissioner Achtelik noted that a number of realtors once met
with the city manager to discuss this concern. Councilmember
Cohen suggested looking at this issue again. Commissioner
Achtelik said she has seen changes in the City, and she does not
feel it has always been for the better. Councilmember Cohen noted
there will be more cultural diversity in the community, and the
school districts are addressing this. He noted there are
perceptions and truths, and the City needs to deal with these.
Councilmember Cohen said he will talk to the city manager about
the issue related to the sign ordinance. He suggested perhaps
city officials could meet with realtors on an annual basis to
communicate any concerns. Commissioner Achtelik pointed out the
realtors work in the City and can be a good PR source for it.
Councilmember Cohen thanked the commission for its input and left
the meeting at this time.
Commissioner Achtelik said she read Councilmember Cohen's comments
in response to the mayor's state of the city address.
Councilmember Rosene said he would like to find out the
commission's reaction to the address. Commissioner Achtelik said
she agreed with Councilmember Cohen in that the city council
should have seen comments from the speech in advance of it.
Commissioner Carmody said there is a perception that elected
officials are out of touch. Councilmember Rosene said any
councilmember would welcome an opportunity to meet with residents.
Commissioner Eoloff said she liked the idea of town meetings.
Commissioner Carmody said the city council has its advisory
commissions, and questioned why the commissions are not used more
often. Councilmember Rosene said Commissioner Eoloff's idea to
have a meeting of the advisory commissioners with the city council
would be a good idea, and perhaps department heads could give
overviews of what is happening in the city departments. He added
all of the City's commissions would function better if they had a
good idea of what the City is doing.
There was a motion by Commissioner Windsor and seconded by
Commissioner Achtelik to propose a joint meeting of the city
04 -08 -92 -6-
A
council and the advisory commissions, and forward this request on
to the financial task force. The motion passed.
The Recording Secretary noted the title of the evaluation and
application forms for contributions to nonprofit human services
programs has been changed to "Application and Evaluation for
Contractual Services for Nonprofit Human Service
Programs /Agencies ".
The next commission meeting is scheduled for May 13, 1992, at 7:00
p.m. It was requested that the issue of cultural diversity be
added to the next agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Carmody and seconded by
Commissioner Eoloff to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.
The Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission
adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
Chairperson
04 -08 -92 -7-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 11, 1992
Agenda Item Namur
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
i
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AWARD OF CONSULTING CONTRACT FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STUDY
DEPT. APP R
erald G. inter, City Manager
MANAGER'S RE W/RECOnEMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SIJMVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
Last week the members of the selection and review committee, Mr. Lescault, Mr. Blumentals and
myself interviewed five consulting firms submitting proposals. These firms were Westwood
Professional Services, Inc.; Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.; BRW; Barton Ashman
Associates, Inc. /Camors, Inc.; and Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban Inc.
The selection committee, after reviewing these quality proposals recommends award of the
consulting contract to Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban Inc. Attached please find a copy of the proposed
consulting agreement for your consideration, a copy of the Brooklyn Boulevard Development Study
RFP and a proposal presented by Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban Inc. The Dahlgren group also
submitted the attached April 23, 1992, letter in which he outlines some of the emphasis regarding
the study. Included in this letter is reference to the need for recommendations to come to the City
in the first thirty days of the study regarding the northwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard.
There was also in their proposal an optional vision workshop. This would be a workshop which
would be scheduled to bring members of the community together to view visualizations of
opportunities on Brooklyn Boulevard and get everyone working from a common set of terms and
offer an opportunity for brainstorming the future of Brooklyn Boulevard. This optional task is
estimated to cost approximately $4,000 and staff recommends the Council give serious consideration
to this option.
The committee believes the strength of the Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban Inc. firm for this Brooklyn
Boulevard study lies in the fact they have completed similar studies to this in a number of locations
including St. Cloud, Burnsville, Champlin, and Falcon Heights. In addition this firm has had
experience working with Lee Maxfield who has completed our market studies in housing and
commercial areas and our traffic engineers, Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc.
As a part of the proposal and work schedule the consultant proposes an ad hoc committee or task
force to work with the consultant, Planning Commission and city staff in developing the final report.
It would be important for this task force to be in place and appointed prior to the start of the work
program.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
We recommend the Council give favorable consideration to the appointment of Dahlgren, Shardlow
Uban Inc. as consultant on the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and authorizing the
mayor and city manager to sign the consulting contract. We further recommend the Council
approve and authorize the optional vision workshop suggested in the consultants work program and
commence immediately to set up the ad hoc advisory task force.
lay � J
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW ` AND UBAN, INC
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Requests for Proposals
for a redevelopment study of Brooklyn Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, proposals were submitted by five consulting
firms; and
WHEREAS, after formal review and consideration by an
interview panel it is the recommendation to award the contract to
the firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment
Study contract is hereby awarded to Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban,
Inc. and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute said contract.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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.
y
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Brooklyn Center is a first ring northern suburb of Minneapolis. With an
approximate population of 30,000, the City occupies 8.5 square miles. The City's economic
base is a well- balanced mix of manufacturing, warehousing, retail, and service. Brookdale,
a large regional mall, dominates the retail in the city and general area. Commercial
industrial properties comprise 50% of the City's total market value, while residential
property is the major portion of the other half of the property value.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Brooklyn Boulevard, historically referred to as Osseo Road, is an integral part of the
commercial /retail base of the city, as well as a major traffic corridor. Over the past few
years, there has been a noticeable decline in the overall appearance of Brooklyn Boulevard.
The general condition of buildings is deteriorating and indeed some buildings are vacant or
underused. The general decline in the area is of concern to the City.
It is the desire of the City of Brooklyn Center to take an active role in stemming this decline
before the problem becomes inordinate. The City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1980,
warns that a general decline in the "environmental quality" of Brooklyn Boulevard will have
an adverse affect upon adjoining residential neighborhoods.
In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the City has undertaken two (2) separate studies,
both of which were conducted by the Maxfield Research Group. The first was a
comprehensive housing study comparing the present housing inventory with the City's future
population housing needs. The second was a similar study of the commercial /industrial
properties of the City. Both studies were conducted from a "market" oriented approach as
opposed to a land use approach. Both studies have observations about Brooklyn Boulevard
PROPOSAL
The City of Brooklyn Center is seeking proposals for a study of Brooklyn Boulevard that will
consider the two (2) Maxfield studies in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan to be
used to develop /update City policies and goals with respect to the redevelopment of
Brooklyn Boulevard. Recommendations should not be limited by the confines of the
Comprehensive Plan or the Maxfield studies but should address in detail any recommended
deviations. It is the intent of the City to use the study as a review of past policies, plans,
and regulations affecting redevelopment of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor
STUDY AREA
Length: Highway 100 north along Brooklyn Boulevard to 73rd Avenue North.
Width: 400' from the curb on both the east and west side of Brooklyn Boulevard.
SCOPE OF STUDY
The study should provide Brooklyn Center with a rational /philosophical basis for
establishing bjectives and policies for the redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. It should
g J P P yn d
be of sufficient detail as to provide guidance by which development proposals can be
evaluated. At a minimum, the final product should provide a conceptual development plan
for Brooklyn Boulevard that considers:
a. current setback requirements;
b. buffering techniques to mitigate the impact of redevelopment on adjoining
residential uses;
C. separation of R -1 uses from commercial uses;
d. landscaping /streetscape;
e. nonconforming uses defined in the guide plan versus those defined by current
zoning;
f. prezone parcels or use the guide plan to direct future zoning;
g. types and density of developments recommended that are compatible with
traffic capacity limitation; and
h. possible architectural review or ordinance to enhance or develop community
character.
In addition, the study should identify potential impediments to development along Brooklyn
Boulevard. Such impediments can be physical, financial, guide plan oriented, or ordinance
related. Also, describe any techniques and /or ordinance that can be adopted to control or
direct development on specific sites.
Further, the report should address a public involvement process prior to final acceptance
of the report. Affected businesses and neighborhoods should be offered the opportunity to
comment on and react to the recommendations of the report.
First ri ri
o should be given to issues related to a specific development r h
p ty gl p p proposal for e
northwest comer of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and should be reported
back to the City within 30 days of the awarding of the contract.
PRODUCT REVIEW
The selected consultant should anticipate an initial meeting before undertaking the study.
In addition, two (2) preliminary reviews should be expected before a presentation to the
council.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Study proposals will include a detailed description of the proposed study and methodology
to be used. Also, RFPs will include a resume of the company submitting the proposal as
well as resumes of the individuals who will work on the study. Fees for completion of the
study must be included. Also, reimburseables must be estimated and submitted as a "not
to exceed" cost. Finally, all RFPs must provide a completion time estimate.
WORK PRODUCT
The findings will be presented in a bound report and will include an executive summary
section. One hundred (100) copies of the report will be delivered and the provider will
make a formal presentation of the study to the city council.
SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION AND CONTACT PERSON
The completed RFPs are due no later than 4:30 p.m. on April 9, 1992.
Eight (8) copies of the RFP should be delivered to:
Mr. Ron Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Mr. Warren can be contacted at 569 -3330.
This study is 100 Federally Funded with Community Development Block Grant Funds.
Copies of the Maxfield reports are available upon request.
s
t I
�.
INCORPORATED
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
612.3393300
23 April 1992
Mr. Gerald Splinter
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Gerry:
John and I appreciated the opportunity to present our approach to the Brooklyn Boulevard Study
yesterday. I want to follow up on a few of the items that you, Jack, and Janis seemed to emphasize
in our discussion.
■ Brooklyn Center's planning perspective has to change from an "initial growth" to a
"redevelopment" perspective. Our work on the University Avenue Corridor in St. Paul
emphasized a process that brought the many interest groups that developer over time to tbe.
table.
The need for current redevelopment strategies. Our professional staff is actively involved
in researching and applying the most current redevelopment strategies. We are active il. the
AIA, APA, Lambda Alpha, ULI, National Trust for Historic Preservation, U of M, and
various civic planning advocacy groups.
The opportunity to utilize Tony Nelessen's Visual Preference Survey techniques. We
have integrated this technique with much success in our recent planning assignments. It has
been used in St. Cloud and will be done shortly in Lake City. We have proposed to use it
on Brooklyn Bouievard aiso. (,Task 104'
The 69th Street Union 76 Convenience Store Proposal. Regarding the proposed Union 76
convenience store, you have several options that can be explored during the first 30 days of
the study. You may decide that the land use is inappropriate and move to change the
ordinance. Or, you may decide to accept the use, but develop design guidelines that would
make the development more compatible with adjoining single- family uses. These guidelines
could be adopted to hearing the application for a setback variance on the property.
m Brainstorming Opportunities. Our Task 107: Optional Vision Workshop was seen as an
opportunity to bring together people from the community with others to brainstorm a future
vision of the 13 We have extensive experience designing and facilitating these
> worl: -ohs, each of which is unique. In the past, we have modeled them after AIA
Mr. Gerald Splinter, Brooklyn Center 23 April 1992 Page 2
RUDAT's, GDT's, ULI community assistance panels, etc. We can design an appropriate
workshop for Brooklyn Boulevard.
These are just few of the items that we expect to be a part of this exciting project. We look forward
:o working together and await the next step.
Sincerel ,
ap
•
Tim Griffin
TG /gms
A proposal to prepare
THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
i
For the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Submitted by:
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inca
Consulting Planners and Landscape Architects
9 APRIL 1992
9 April 1992
Mr. Ron Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Warren:
We are pleased to submit this proposal to prepare "7he Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study. "
This proposal has been prepared in response to your RFP and is organized in the following manner:
a) project understanding outlining our initial impressions about the upcoming study; b) a description
of our proposed approach to the study; c) the professional qualifications of our firm and team
members; and d) the project cost.
For your convenience, highlights of our proposal are presented below.
Your Consultants. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. is a Minneapolis -based consulting planning
practice whose principals have assisted communities throughout the region with growth and
redevelopment planning and development policies for over 25 years.
Personnel to be Assigned to the Project. The individuals who will work on the Boulevard Study
have extensive experience in all aspects of rural and urban planning, including community planning,
land use, development regulations, urban design, transportation planning, environmental planning,
landscape architecture, development packaging, and economic development strategies. These
individuals are senior level consultants who have worked together on similar assignments.
Experience in Related Studies and Assignments. Our project team has prepared corridor plans for
numerous communities throughout the Midwest. In addition, our team has experience in a range of
other assignments that will prove useful to the Boulevard Study, including neighborhood planning,
parks and open space design, development review and analysis, and citizen participation and
consensus building.
Approach to the Project. Our proposed approach to the Brooklyn Boulevard assignment would
result in agreed upon Corridor Plan. Our approach would assist the City in reaching informed public
policy decisions regarding future growth and development. These decisions would be handled
through a thorough understanding of environmental conditions and constraints, development
potentials, local needs and concerns, and attitudes and perceptions.
Mr. Ron Warren, Brooklyn Center 9 AprU 1991 Page 2
Proposed Planning Process. We propose a three -phase planning process for the Boulevard Study.
This process includes the solicitation of local input, the documentation of existing conditions, the
assessment of future potentials, the preparation and testing of alternative plans and projects, and the
preparation of a working plan and policy document. Our planning process is organized around a
series of working conferences and decision points that would help build consensus in the planning
process one step at a time.
Emphasis on Citizen Participation. We firmly believe that successful comprehensive plans must be
based on active local input and participation. We propose a close working relationship with City
staff and their Planning Commissions. We also propose a structured outreach program utilizing
workshops and interview sessions with a wide range of interest groups to discuss ideas and
information, identify issues and concerns, evaluate plans and concepts, and build consensus and
support for the Boulevard Study.
Knowledge of the Study Area. Our project team is familiar with Brooklyn Boulevard. We have
made a preliminary visit in the preparation of this proposal to discuss the expectations for this study
with City staff, local residents, and businessmen. We believe that we bring to the study a strong
initial understanding of overall conditions and potentials within the area. A discussion of our
preliminary findings appears in the Project Understanding section of this proposal.
Commitment to the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study. We are prepared to commit our
project team to the Boulevard Study. Our proposed scope of work can be completed within the
City's schedule guidelines. Our current workloads would allow us to make this commitment.
References. We believe that the best way to assess a consultant's past performance is by contacting
past clients, particularly those for whom the submitting firms have performed similar services for in
the past.
We look forward to the opportunity of working with you on this exciting assignment. If you have
any questions regarding our submission, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, UBAN, INC.
C. John Uban, ASLA
Principal
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Brooklyn Center is requesting proposals from qualified
consultants to prepare the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study.
The need for this study is a result of the fact that previous plans for
the boulevard have not been implemented. Whether due to develop-
ment regulations, changing development trends, economic conditions,
or lack of City pariticipation, a new strategy has to be developed to
achieve the City's redevelopment goals for Brooklyn Boulevard.
Our project team has visited Brooklyn Center and completed a field
reconnaissance of the corridor and surrounding areas. We have also
had brief discussions with City Staff regarding issues and potentials
within the community. Finally, we have reviewed the two reports
prepared by Maxfield Research Group and the boulevard study done
by BRW, in terms of both their planning focus and their more general
observations about the community.
Based on our initial investigation, we have reached several preliminary
conclusions regarding the direction and focus of the Brooklyn
Boulevard Development Study. These ideas, which are presented
below and illustrated on Figure 1: Preliminary Field Reconnaissance,
provide an overall framework for our proposed work program included
in the following section of this proposal.
FOCUS AND DIRECTION OF THE BOULEVARD STUDY
The boulevard study should refine and extend the conceptual
framework for the community that was established in the 1965 and
1981 Comprehensive Plans in which Brooklyn Boulevard was planned
as a major arterial moving through the City. Those plans established
the basic land use and circulation principles that should be updated,
but retained in the upcoming study.
The Boulevard Study should also include a process of active commu-
nity involvement. The community should be involved in identifying
issues and concerns, formulating project goals, evaluating project al-
ternatives, and refining plan recommendations. Local participation
should be encouraged.
A key objective of the plan should be to reinforce and enhance distinct
sections of the corridor, specifically single- and multi - family develop-
ments, the Brookdale area, and auto - oriented commercial uses. The
plan should also link together and unify the overall community within
a single common identity. The plan should reflect the City's
preferences and desires as to how future development occurs along
the corridor.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
:Ir
. �- •.N 5:1C) \SIN
cx4 to riv
FAW
loan=
�V1 �Y
L ' e , }
Irl
ELI ak
0
V x-41
DnF: .vf N. . ' I � • . • � _ -:' !"i ' ` �v3 i �a � 1 �' . �'Y ,•s�. ���` ,� � �
'3AV - 9NL3 • 4'• x '� %' t- .. ..'`��G �� ..
.V:V, . n �jr - li 'e' � / -f / ^C • h� •KhXy� z. " __n �}`�
E1ING AYE w - i ` D I `c • l
� / 7 F(U11 �..n .'v ..
AAA
'IONI i IFOIANA A ' .�. ' -- - -. - ' -- - - ... -.
S'
< -
'i Y J.
_S
i
W
3
VA
AM A
W f-Ml AN 51 1 JIV0 y5 :
III AYE. N.
I:�I`� NO c Q1�
Of{OINN AYE. N. )
M < U
L`-- _
N. PERKY
1t
-ow
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 3
The Boulevard Study should establish an overall land -use pattern and
structure for the corridor and surrounding area, indicating geographic
areas for maintenance, preservation and new development. It should
establish an overall, system -wide framework for traffic access and
circulation within various sections of the corridor. This should include
guidelines for pedestrian facilities and bicycle and public transit as
well. The plan should also address landscape, signage, and environ-
mental improvements.
Finally, the Boulevard Study should focus on several key issue areas
and concerns related to physical and economic development. These
are briefly described below:
■ Boulevard Role and Function. The Boulevard Study should restate
Brooklyn Boulevard's role and function in the community as the
City's first "Main Street" and a major traffic arterial. The boulevard
should move automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and public trans-
portation safely and compatibly.
■ Review Current Regulations. The Boulevard Study should review
current land use relationship requirements and setbacks along the
Boulevard. Under the current regulation, the location of auto -
oriented commercial uses next to single - family residential is
prohibited. This condition needs to be examined not only at the
69th Street intersection, but along the length of the corridor as well.
• Improve the Visual Environment. The Boulevard Study should
identify environmental improvements that would improve the
image of the corridor. Comparible corridors would be visited to
collect potential improvement ideas. The improvements could in-
clude landscaped gateways, parkways and buffer zones. Streetscape
and signage programs and other visual design elements create a
"theme" for the boulevard.
■ Distinct Sections. The boulevard should recognize that the corridor
contains distinct sections and that within the unifying efforts of the
study, criteria will be different from section to section.
■ Contemporary Development Patterns. The study should integrate
contemporary development "product" within the framework of a
suburban boulevard. When the boulevard was first developed in
the 50's, grocery stores were 20,000 square feet, shopping malls did
not exist and gas stations were on quarter -acre corner lots. Today,
Brookdale is a major regional center, Cub Foods stores can be
100,000 square feet and auto -food stops require an acre of land.
The study should attempt to reconcile these changes and anticipate
future development patterns.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
I
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 A ri11992
P 4
P 3'n P g
• The City as a Developer. The study should explore the potential of
the City's participation in the development process. Vacant, less
expensive land elsewhere offers stiff competition for the type of
development envisioned along Brooklyn Boulevard. The City may
decide to become more actively involved in the assembly and
offering of competitive development sites.
• An Action Plan. The implementation program that is prepared as
part of this plan should provide the City of Brooklyn Center with
a blueprint to proceed with the orderly improvement of Brooklyn
Boulevard. The plan should recognize the resources that are cur-
rently and likely to be available and maximize their use and appli-
cation.
•
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
i
PROJECT APPROACH
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 5
PROJECT APPROACH We suggest that the City of Brooklyn Center undertake a three -phase
program for preparing its Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Plan.
This program would involve soliciting local views and perceptions,
analyzing existing conditions, identifying issues and concerns, formu-
lating goals and objectives, developing and evaluating alternative plans
and policies, and preparing final Boulevard Study recommendations.
Each task in the proposed work program is indicated in Figure 2.
Preliminary Work Program and is described on the following pages.
We suggest that the proposed work program be undertaken on a
cooperative basis by an Ad Hoc Comprehensive Plan Committee and
the consulting team. This committee could include City Staff, elected
officials, representatives from citizens groups, such as Brooklyn
Boulevard merchants, and residents. A group of 12 to 15 people would
be ideal. We believe that the consultant should provide advice and
assistance throughout the program and that the consultant's role could
vary with respect to each task in the program. We would also suggest
that you retain your market consultants, Maxfield Research Group,
Inc., and your traffic consultants to participate on this committee.
We have outlined an overall work program that we believe will
produce a meaningful and responsive Redevelopment Plan for the
boulevard. Should the City favor this basic approach, we would work
closely with City officials to define the specific role of the consulting
team, as well as various local participants, on each specific task in the
work program.
PHASE I: PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Phase I would initiate the overall study, organize the local participation
process, analyze existing conditions and operations, and identify needs
and opportunities.
TASK 101: PROJECT INITIATION
Before actual work begins, a job initiation conference would be held
to set the framework for the study. Participants in the conference
would include the project director, key personnel from the consulting
team, City staff, and the Boulevard Study Committee. The purposes
of this conference would be to: (a) review overall study objectives; (b)
refine the work program for the study; (c) resolve any questions
regarding contract interpretation; (d) assign responsibilities to each
participant regarding the various tasks in the work program; and (e)
establish a firm basis for all participants working together to complete
the assignment in an orderly manner.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES PLAN REFINEMENT
2 months 2 months 2 months
102
Prepare
Base 201
Map
�— Goals & -
103 106 objectives Fi al
Review
Background
101 Past 1. Context •' 107 108 109 202 204
205 301 Dee 303
Studies 2 Land Use Opl th Workin Alternative Pre pare P
Project 3. Circulation Visitiona Synthesis Alternative of Issues Conference a Corridor Evaluation C orki g C d r Plan
Initiation 104 q, .YVo!!ho * Needs &
P Opport Concepts Plan
Workshop S. Visual Image • - - - -•
Visual 6. F�vel. 'Trends 203
urve 7. Code Review
Alternative
r — (' — i Corridor
I 105 1 Policies
Li
Optional
1 Personal 1
Interviews 1
L - - - -�
Figure 2
PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM '
,.
CONSULTING PLANNERS
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
512 339 3300
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 7
•
END PRODUCT. An understanding and agreement between the
Boulevard Study Committee and the consulting team regarding con-
duct of the assignment.
TASK 102: BASE MAPPING
An accurate and up -to -date base map is essential to the preparation
of a Boulevard Study. Brooklyn Center's existing base maps would be
reviewed to determine if any changes are required to reflect recent
development. Modifications would be made as required. These maps
would then be utilized at an agreed -upon scale for recording and
presenting information pertaining to the Boulevard Study. We under-
stand that the City's base map is available in U1tiMap CADD format
and will be available for the Boulevard Study.
END PRODUCT. Up -to -date base maps for use in the Boulevard
Study.
TASK 103: REVIEW OF EXISTING STUDIES, PLANS AND
REPORTS
All previously prepared reports, studies and other documents having
a bearing on the assignment would be assembled and reviewed. This
review would determine: (a) the status and utility of previously col -
lected background data and material; (b) data gaps and deficiencies
that must be corrected through new surveys and inventories; and (c)
the validity of past assumptions and conclusions regarding existing
conditions and future potentials.
END PRODUCT. An overall understanding of the quality of exiting
data, new surveys that will be needed, and the validity of past assump-
tions about the community.
TASK 104: ISSUE WORKSHOP & VISUAL SURVEY
A community meeting would be held to encourage participation by
local residents and interest groups in the initial phase of the Boulevard
Study. The workshop would: (a) report on the planning process and
the timing and purpose of the study program; (b) secure resident views
on issues, problems, and potentials in the community; and (c) conduct
a visual survey of the boulevard to determine local land use and
environmental and circulation preferences. Special efforts would be
made to encourage maximum turnout at the workshops, such as news-
paper ads, and public service announcements on local radio and tele-
vision.
END PRODUCT. An understanding of resident views on issues,
problems and potentials in the community.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 8
TASK 105: OPTIONAL KEY PERSON INTERVIEWS
Optional interviews with key persons could be undertaken in order to
obtain first -hand impressions and perception about Brooklyn
Boulevard and its potentials, strengths and possible future needs.
Rather than conducting a structured attitude survey, the interviews
would be organized to allow correlations and comparisons with respect
to local impressions and perceptions. Representatives from business,
government and local institutions could be contacted.
END PRODUCT. An understanding of resident views on issues,
problems and potentials on the boulevard.
TASK 106: BACKGROUND ANALYSES
The existing development pattern and operational conditions along
Brooklyn Boulevard would have a major influence on future potentials.
Accurate, complete and up -to -date information on existing conditions
is essential to a successful comprehensive planning program. Back-
ground information on several key components will be needed, and
these are listed below:
1. Planning Context. Brooklyn Boulevard is a major regional ar-
terial serving the City. The context analysis would identify the
other major formgiving elements in the City and determine the
relationships and influences of those elements on the boulevard
and vice versa. The other elements would include roadways, major
land uses, and natural features.
2. Existing Land -Use. A parcel -by- parcel survey would be under-
taken of all land areas along the corridor. Survey personnel should
utilize the Standard Land -Use Coding Manual in recording the
specific use of each building and parcel in the community. Aerial
photographs could be used as a resource where appropriate. Field
data would be mapped and analyzed to identify functional land -use
areas, compatible and incompatible land -use relationships, vacant
lands, and areas of underdevelopment.
3. Circulation. An analysis would be made of external traffic con-
nections and internal circulation systems serving Brooklyn
Boulevard, with specific reference to street configuration and ca-
pacities, truck routes, accident locations, localized congestion, and
transit routes and usage. Available traffic and circulation data
would be collected from local, regional and State agencies. Field
reconnaissance surveys would also be conducted to view problem
locations and operating conditions as required.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 9
4. Parking. Available parking would be mapped along the corridor
includin g major jlots and smaller separate parcels. Inef-
parking
ficiencies would be noted and potent ial consolidation opportunities
and circulation improvements would be identified.
5. Visual Image. An inventory and analysis of any special environ-
mental features and conditions along the corridor would be con-
ducted. This would encompass all special natural and man -made
features that add to the boulevard's unique image and character.
These might include landmarks, open space areas, wooded area or
conservancies, environmentally sensitive areas, or distinctive land
development patterns. Also, the community gateways, north, south
and from the expressway, would be evaluated.
6. Development Trends. The history of the development of the
boulevard would be documented. Key building projects, roadway
improvements, and other projects would be researched. The de-
velopment "typology" of the boulevard would be analyzed from the
' contemporary
50 s suburban style to recent
ty atterns to determine P
potential future development patterns.
7. Municipal Codes. A review and analysis of various development
and maintenance codes currently enforced in the community would
be undertaken, perhaps including the zoning ordinance, subdivision
regulations, building code and housing ordinance. Enforcement
policies and procedures of each code would be evaluated. Existing
deficiencies and recommended mended amendments
or modifications
would be identified for review by local officials.
END PRODUCT: A series of work papers and supporting graphics
summarizing the findings and conclusions of the background inven-
tories. This work would be completed one (1) month into the study
and would include an extensive analysis of the issues surrounding the
proposed development at the north west corner of 69th Street.
TASK 107: OPTIONAL COMMUNITY VISION WORKSHOP
An optional Community Vision Workshop could be held at this point
in the process. The purpose of the workshop would be to present the
background data to the community and brainstorm strategic planning
options for the corridor. In addition to the Project Team, additional
resource P brought could be b P
P eo l t into the session. The actual scope
and format of this session can be worked out if you decide to include
it in the Boulevard Study.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 P age 1
TASK 108: SYNTHESIS OF NEEDS, ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES
The findings and conclusions derived from previous tasks would be
brought together into a synthesized statement highlighting needs, is-
sues and opportunities. The key findings would be presented in a
manner that will facilitate local review and discussion. It is essential
that agreement be reached on problems and needs before any discus-
sion of plan and program choices or strategies. This information would
lead to a local working conference or forum on the issues identified.
TASK 109: WORKING CONFERENCE
A working conference would be conducted with the Boulevard Study
Committee and the consulting team. The purposes of the conference
would be to create a common informational threshold for all study
participants and to review and evaluate community needs and oppor-
tunities. The key objective would be to elicit consensus at this point
to serve as a basis for proceeding into the next phases.
END PRODUCT Agreement on issues and opportunities and on the
basic direction to be pursued in the preparation of alternative plan
concepts and strategies.
PHASE IL• EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Phase II would focus on the preparation and testing of alternative plan
concepts for the corridor and alternative strategies for guiding and
implementing corridor improvement projects.
TASK 201: CONFIRM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Based on the conclusions of the major work session in Phase I, a
preliminary list of overall goals and objectives would be prepared that
will translate local feelings regarding the corridor into operational
statements, which can guide and provide direction to planning activi-
ties. The preliminary listing would be reviewed and discussed with all
study participants, modifications made as required, and a final list
prepared.
END PRODUCT: Agreement on goals and objectives for the com-
munity and the Boulevard Study.
TASK 202: ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Concept plans are broad, overall schemes for future corridor improve-
ment and development. They indicate possible plan solutions and are
general rather than specific. They deal with major planning issues and
i
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 11
are meant to illustrate overall approaches to guiding the functions,
form and quality of the community.
Concept plans are usually prepared in pairs to indicate alternative
ways of planning future improvement and development. Two concept
plans enable the detailed testing evaluation of different approaches.
Testing and evaluation can facilitate the refinement of corridor con -
cepts and provide the basis for developing final plans and programs.
Alternative corridor concepts would be prepared for land -use, circula-
tion, parking, and design and appearance along the boulevard. These
plans would indicate options for long -range actions in various neigh-
borhood, business and other areas. Concept plans would address basic
issues identified during Phase I of the process and would include
alternatives related to: 1) residential densities and dwelling types; 2)
location, type and extent of commercial development; 3) access and
transportation systems; 4) the location and type of urban design im-
provements; and 5) future growth and development.
END PRODUCT. • Graphics and supporting text illustrating and
describing alternative corridor plan concepts.
TASK 203: CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative development policies, criteria, and standards for each of
the major plan elements would be prepared, including land -use and
development, circulation, parking, and design and appearance. This
task would also focus on policy choices with respect to growth man-
agement, community image and character, urban form and quality of
life. While set forth as either policies, criteria, standards or principles,
these alternatives would draw upon and be related to and consistent
with the Boulevard Study goals and objectives.
END PRODUCT. • Graphics and supporting text illustrating and
describing development policy alternatives.
TASK 204: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
A list of criteria for comparing and evaluating the alternative concept
plans and scenarios would be prepared. Utilizing these criteria, which
would focus on important physical, economic, social and fiscal consid-
erations, study participants would conduct an evaluation of the relative
merit and impact of undertaking each alternative. The evaluations
would provide the basis for possible refinements to the plan concepts.
END PRODUCT. Work paper listing the evaluation criteria, explain-
ing the evaluation format, and summarizing the evaluation of altern-
ative development plans and concepts.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
Page 12
Pro osal for Brooklyn nter 9 A ri11992 g
P
3'n P
i
TASK 205: WORKING CONFERENCE
A working conference would be conducted with the consulting team
and the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The purpose of the confer-
ence would be to review and discuss plan alternatives and develop a
consensus on basic plan recommendations.
END PRODUCT: Agreement on preferred concept plans and devel-
opment policies.
PHASE III: REFINEMENT OF PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Phase III would involve preparation of final plan recommendations
and the final Boulevard Study document.
TASK 301: PREPARE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Based on results of the working conference, a draft Boulevard Study
would be prepared for local review. The study would include:
1. Corridor Plan. The Corridor Plan would consist of policies related
to land -use, transportation and community facilities, and would also
include plan maps illustrating the locational aspects of plan policies.
The Long -Range Plan would consist of the following components:
■ Land -Use and Development. This would include policies and
guidelines regarding the use and development of land within and
around the City. It should be specific enough to guide local staff
and officials in decisions regarding land development.
- Circulation and Parkins. This would include policies and
guidelines regarding streets, parking, traffic movement and traffic
control along the corridor.
- Design and Appearance. This would include urban design
sketches and landscape designs to integrate the boulevard in a
desirable manner.
- Community Facilities. This would include policies and
guidelines for the provision of a quality public environment.
2. Implementation Program. A recommended implementation pro-
gram would also be prepared. The Implementation Program would
focus on the relationships of time, needs and resources required to
implement high priority projects and actions.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 13
END PRODUCT: Final a hics and draft text illustrating and
� P
describing the recommended plan and implementation program.
TASK 302: BOULEVARD STUDY PRESENTATION
The Draft Boulevard Study would be presented for community review
and comment.
TASK 303: PREPARE FINAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Based on local review and comment, appropriate revisions and correc-
tions to the Draft Boulevard Study would be made, and one hundred
(100) copies of the final version of the Plan report would be prepared,
including text, maps and other graphics.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In addition to the optional tasks listed in the Work Program, the City
may want to consider the following services in the near future follow-
ing the completion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study.
1. Comprehensive Plan Update
2. Appearance Codes
3. Landscape Ordinance
'
4. Urban Design Guidelines
5. Site Utilization Studies
6. Land Acquisition and Development RFP's
7. Boulevard Master Landscape Plan and Construction Documents
8. Gateway Landscape Plans and Construction Documents
9. City-wide Urban Forestry Program
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
0
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC.
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. is a planning firm with extensive experience in the areas of
city planning and urban design. In addition to preparing comprehensive plans and providing
professional services for several cities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the firm has
prepared and is currently involved in the preparation of plans for numerous private enterprise
commercial, industrial, and residential development projects. The firm is also frequently called
upon to prepare and give expert testimony in the courts and before regulatory agencies on various
matters related to urban land use.
The firm is founded on the philosphy that a cooperative interaction between the public and
private sectors is prerequisite to the successful preparation and implementation of development
plans. The considerable experience of our firm in both sectors makes us uniquely capable of
coordinating this interaction and proposing fair solutions to complex development problems.
The firm currently consists of individuals with backgrounds in city planning, landscape architec-
ture, environmental planning, graphic design, and market research.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING WORK
Our firm has assisted well over 100 communities in their comprehensive planning efforts over
the years. Included for your review is a list of communities and projects that we have planned
and designed. This list includes contact people for references.
We have been involved with several communities, including Roseville, Burnsville, and Mendota
Heights for many years, having prepared their first comprehensive plans in the 1960's, then
updating them some years later. In these cities and others, we have responded to specific
concerns by preparing area studies, or "mini- comprehensive plans ", for a smaller neighborhood
or area within the city that needed attention, in addition to the more general overall compre-
hensive plan. These plans have been prepared to respond to issues such as traffic, highway
redesign, airport noise, industrial development, blighted areas, and downtown rehabilitation.
In the specific area of planning for economic development, our recent experience has been
focused on a few of our ongoing client cities. In the cities of Mendota Heights, Roseville and
Burnsville, we have prepared complex tax increment financing and redevelopment plans. We
have also prepared and assisted in the preparation of a number of brochures to promote
economic development opportunities in these cities.
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 15
STAFF AND The Project Team that has been assembled for this project is experi-
ORGANIZATION enced with all aspects of corridor planning, including land -use plan-
ning, economic development, transportation planning, design and ap-
pearance improvements, and project financing and implementation.
All members of the Project Team are senior -level consultants and have
worked together on similar projects. This is particularly true for the
Brooklyn Center assignment since the consultant will be called upon
to provide overall guidance and supervision in plan and policy formula-
tion and evaluation.
Key members of the Project Team are identified below. Detailed
resumes are presented on the following pages.
• C. John Uban, Principal and Chief Executive Officer, would serve as
Project Executive for the study and assume overall responsibility for
contractual matters. He would also be involved in the economic
development components of the study. Mr. Uban has over 18 years
experience serving clients in the public and private sectors. He has
prepared numerous comprehensive plans and often provides expert
testimony on land -use matters.
• Timothy J. Griffin, Senior Planner, would serve as Project Director
for this assignment and will be in charge of the physical planning and
policy components of the study, including the facilitation of commu-
nity meetings and workshops. Mr. Griffin has broad experience in
architecture planning and urban design and has directed numerous
comprehensive community planning and downtown development
projects.
• Geoff Martin, Senior Landscape Architect, would provide special as-
sistance on community identity issues, including the Central Business
District, future park areas, the riverfronts and community gateways.
Mr. Martin is an award winning landscape architect with extensive
experience in the design and planning of well integrated communities.
• Wally Case, Senior Landscape Architect, would provide special assis-
tance in the design of environmental improvements and landscape
concepts. Mr. Case is an experienced landscape architect who has
designed numerous parks, corporate campuses, and parkways.
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
C. JOHN UBAN, ASLA Dahl►ren Shardtow, and Uban, Inc.
President
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Uban is responsible for overseeing site development projects, park and recreational plans,
landscape plans prepared for architectural firms, environmental analyses, and city planning
projects. In addition, Mr. Uban often prepares and gives expert testimony in court cases and
before regulatory agencies.
• Consulting Planner to the Cities of Falcon Heights, Monticello and North Oaks, MN and
Hudson, WI
• Champlin, MN
- Highway 169 Corridor Study & Master Plan (land use, circulation & regulatory mech-
anisms)
- Old Towne Redevelopment Plan
• Fergus Falls Downtown Redevelopment Plan (principal in charge)
• Residential developments (site planning, environmental review & government approval
process):
- Waterford, Shorewood
- Eagan Hills Farms, Eagan
- Boulder Pointe, Eden Prairie
- Essex Estates, Rochester
• White Bear Technology Park (environmental approvals, regional highway issues & site
design)
• Jonathan Industrial Complex Master Plan, Chaska, MN (principal in charge)
• Hazeltine National Golf Course Land Use & Expansion Study, Chaska (principal in
charge)
• Wooddale Church, Eden Prairie (master plan, site design, construction plans & environ-
mental reviews)
Mr. Uban holds Professional Registrations in Landscape Architecture in the States of Minnesota
and Iowa. He is a past president of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Society of Landscape
Architects. He chairs the Freeway Esthetics Committee of the Minneapolis Committee on Urban
Environment, and belongs to the Coalition of Sensible Land Use, the American and Minnesota
Horticulture Societies, the American Forestry Association, the National Association of Home
Builders, and the Urban Land Institute.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture, Iowa State University
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies, Iowa State University
TIMOTHY T. GRIFFIN Dahlgren Shardlow, and Uban. Inc.
Senior Planner
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Griffin is an urban designer who has prepared waterfront and urban design plans and
facilitated workshops throughout the Midwest and other parts of the country. He has directed
Downtown Plans, Town Plans, Site Master Plans, Open Space Plans, Neighborhood Revitaliza-
tion Programs, and Community Development Plans for municipal agencies, civic organizations,
and private sector developers. Several of his projects have received awards* for planning and
design excellence.
Representative projects include:
• Northbank Riverfront Master Plan, Jacksonville, FL*
• Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines, Chicago, IL*
• Grand Rapids CBD Study, Grand Rapids, MN
• Plainfield Comprehensive Plan & Urban Design Plan, Plainfield, IL
• Schaumburg Village Center Master Plan, Schaumburg, IL
• Central Area Plan, Chicago, IL*
• Downtown Oak Park, Oak Park, IL
• West Lafayette Comprehensive Plan & Urban Design Plan, West Lafayette, IL*
• Good Shepard Neighborhood Improvement Plan, Chicago, IL
• 1992 Chicago Worlds Fair Master Plan, Chicago, IL
Mr. Griffin is a registered architect in the State of Illinois. He is a member of the American
Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, Lambda Alpha International, Interna-
tional Downtown Association, and the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. He is also a member of
the Governor's Design Team and is a frequent participant in community development charettes.
Mr. Griffin has lectured extensively on urban design issues and is currently a studio critic at the
University of Minnesota.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Architecture, University of Michigan
Masters of Architecture /Urban Design, University of Michigan
Masters of Urban Planning /Community Development, University of Michigan
GEOFFREY MARTIN, ASLA Dahlgren. Shardlow, and Uban. Inc.
Senior Landscape Architect
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Martin, who joined the firm in 1978, is responsible for landscape and streetscape designs
and park master plans, as well as plans for institutional and office campuses and residential and
commercial developments. He has also prepared expert testimony and numerous exhibits for use
in court cases.
• Nicollet Island Park, Minneapolis, while with Martin and Pitz Associates (member of
design team for this urban waterfront park)
MASLA Merit Award Winner, 1988
Committee on Urban Environment, 1990 Award
• Lee Square Senior Housing, Robbinsdale, Site Design
Metropolitan Council Honor Award, 1986
• Fergus Falls (MN) Downtown Revitalization Plan
40 MASLA Merit Award, 1991
• Monticello (MN) Downtown Streetscape Plan
• State Office Building, State Capitol Campus, Master Plan and Site Design
MAIA Honor Award, 1990
• College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph (MN) Campus Master Plan
• University Avenue Redevelopment Plan (team leader)
• Northwest Airlines World Headquarters, Eagan, Master Plan
Mr. Martin holds a Professional Registration in Landscape Architecture from the State of
Minnesota. He has 11 years' experience in the field.
In addition to belonging to the American Society of Landscape Architects, Mr. Martin has served
as Chair of the Awards Committee and Public Relations Coordinator for the Minnesota chapter
of ASIA. He is an ongoing participant in the Governor's Design Team.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with Distinction, University of Minnesota
WALLACE L CASE, ASLA DahlVen, Shardlow, and Uban. Inc.
Landscape Architect and Recreation Planner
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Case prepares site plans, site designs, corridor studies, circulation studies, and park plans.
Over the last twenty years, he has been involved in developing golf courses, environmental
learning centers, recreational facilities, housing, and commercial and industrial projects. Mr. Case
also prepares EAWs and EISs and research for expert testimony.
• Roseville (MN) Central Park (revised master plan)
• Birnamwood Golf Course Feasibility Study, Burnsville
• Burnsville (MN) Neighborhood Parks: Pahasapa, South River Hills, and Parkwood (site
planning, design and construction documents)
• City of Burnsville:
- Grand Avenue Realignment Study
- 5 & 42 Study (development scenarios)
- Sunset Pond Land Use Study (circulation)
- Highway 13 Corridor Study
• Hazeltine National Golf Course Land Use & Expansion Study, Chaska (MN)
(development scenarios for adjacent properties)
• College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph (MN) Convent Master Plan
• Falcon Heights (MN) Streetscape Study (concept designs)
• Roseville Speed - Skating Facility (site planning and design)
• University Avenue Redevelopment Plan (project manager)
• Dakota County Government Center, Eastern Administration Building, Revised Campus
Master Plan (parking, circulation, potential building sites)
Mr. Case is a landscape architect registered with the State of Minnesota. He has been active in
the Minnesota Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and is a member of
the Tau Sigma Delta Design Honor Society.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture, Iowa State University
COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSISTANCE
Provided by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PROJECTS
14200 Cedar Avenue Central Commercial Area Planning Study
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Sand and Gravel End Use Concept and Draft EIS
612/432 -0750
Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director
John Shardlow, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF BIG LAKE PROJECTS
P.O. Box 250 Comprehensive Plan 1988
Big Lake, Minnesota 55309 Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1988
612/333 -3037
Mike Mornson, City Administrator
Philip Carlson, DSU, Associate -In- Charge
CITY OF BURNSVILLE PROJECTS
100 Civic Center Parkway Ongoing Consultation
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Comprehensive Plan Update 1979
612 /895 -4400 Comprehensive Plan Update 1987
Greg Konat, City Manager Comprehensive Plan Update 1990
John Shardlow, DSU, Principal -In- Charge Sunset Pond Land Use Study
County Roads S and 42 Area Study
Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment
Housing Elements - Ordinance, Guidelines
Highway 13 Corridor and Image Study
Southwest Area Study
Motor Fuel Station
Multi- Family Special Study
Community Recreation Plan
Fire Response Studies
Natural Resource Master Plan Inventory
Floodplain Ordinance
Golf Feasibility Analysis
CITY OF CHAMPLIN PROJECTS
11955 Champlin Drive Highway 169 Corridor Study
Champlin, Minnesota 55316 Old Town Redevelopment
612/421 -8100
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PROJECTS
2077 West Larpenteur Avenue Larpenteur /Snelling Redevelopment Study
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113
612/644 -5050
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
Susan Hoyt Taff, City Administrator
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF FERGUS FALLS PROJECTS
112 West Washington Avenue Central Business District Redevelopment and
Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56537 Streetscape
218/739 -2251
Jim Nitchals, City Administrator
Gordon Hydukovich, City Planner
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROJECTS
7800 Golden Valley Road Post Office Location Study
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
612/593 -8000
Mark Grimes, Planning and Development Director
Geoff Martin, DSU, Associate-In-Charge
CITY OF HOPKINS PROJECTS
1010 1st Street Downtown Alleyscape
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
612/935 -8474
James Kerrigan, Economic Development Director
Geoff Martin, DSU, Associate -In- Charge
CITY OF HUDSON, WISCONSIN PROJECTS
505 Third Street Comprehensive Plan 1991
Hudson, Wisconsin 54016
715/386 -2822
Dennis Darnold, Planner - Zoning Administrator
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF LITTLE FALLS PROJECTS
100 Seventh Avenue N.E. Third Avenue Access Study
Little Falls, Minnesota 56345
612/632 -2341
Richard Carlson, City Administrator
Philip Carlson, DSU, Associate -In- Charge
CITY OF MANKATO PROJECTS
P.O. Box 3368 Expert Testimony
Mankato, Minnesota 56002
507/387 -8600
Larry Forsythe, Planning Director
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROJECTS
1101 Victoria Curve Ongoing Consultation
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Comprehensive Plan 1979
612/452 -1850 Central Commercial Area Planning Study
Jim Danielson, Public Works Director Southeast Area Planning Study
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge Highway 55 Corridor Study
Housing Elements - Guidelines, Ordinance Revisions
Critical Area Study
Community Recreation Plan
CITY OF MINNETRISTA PROJECTS
7701 County Road 110 W. Comprehensive Plan Update 1992
Minnetrista, Minnesota 55364 South Halstead Area Study
612/446 -1660
Jay Blake, City Planner
Philip Carlson, DSU, Associate -In- Charge
CITY OF MONTICELLO PROJECTS
250 East Broadway Comprehensive Plan 1979
Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Orderly Annexation Area Plan
612/295 -2711 Major Annexation Study
Ken Maus, Mayor Main Street Redesign
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Park System Plan
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF NORTH OAKS PROJECTS
1 Pleasant Lake Road Revised City Ordinance
St. Paul, Minnesota 55127 Commercial Planning
612/484 -5777 Subdivision Review and Procedures
Nancy Rozycki, City Clerk Comprehensive Plan Review
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF ORONO PROJECTS
1335 Brown Road South Ongoing Consultation
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Highway 12 Corridor Study
612 /473 -7357 Selected Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Navarre Redevelopment Plan
John Shardlow, DSU, Principal -In- Charge Sewer Plant Site Study
Shoreland Ordinance
Highway 12 Alignment Study
CITY OF ROBBINSDALE PROJECTS
4221 Lake Road Downtown Redevelopment Master Plan
Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 Downtown Streetscape
612/537 -4534
Bill Deblon, Community Development Coordinator
Geoff Martin, DSU, Associate -In- Charge
CITY OF ROCHESTER PROJECTS
403 East Center Cascade Lake Area Master Plan
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
507/281 -6160
Denny Stotz, Assistant Superintendent of Parks
John Uban, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PROJECTS
2660 Civic Center Dr. Ongoing Consultation
Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Comprehensive Plan 1979
612/490 -2200 Twin Lakes Area Planning Study
Craig Waldron, Economic Development Director Tax Increment Financing Plan
John Shardlow, DSU, Principal -In- Charge Housing Elements - Ordinance, Guidelines
Community Recreation Plan
Langton Lake Master Plan
Central Park Master Plan
Golf Facilities Feasibility Study
Sign Ordinance
Expert Testimony
CITY OF ST. CLOUD PROJECTS
400 2nd Street South Comprehensive Plan 1992
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
612/255 -7200
Patti Gartland, Planning Director
John Shardlow, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF ST. PAUL PROJECTS
Dept. of Planning & Economic Development University Avenue Redevelopment Study
25 West 4th Street Zoning/Urban Design Study
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Area Redevelopment Plan
612/228 -3270
Larry Soderholm, Principal Planner
John Shardlow, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
CITY OF SAUK CENTRE PROJECTS
405 Sinclair Lewis Avenue Comprehensive Plan 1992
Sauk Centre, Minnesota 56378 Downtown Study
612/352 -2203 Shoreland Ordinance
Traci Ryan - Rosenberg, Economic Dev't. Coordinator
Timothy Malloy, DSU, Associate -In- Charge
CITY OF SHAKOPEE PROJECTS
129 East First Avenue Racetrack Area Planning Study
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
612/445 -3650
Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
Doug Wise, City Planner
John Shardlow, DSU, Principal -In- Charge
0- 1—
Highway 13 Visioning Study
• Burnsville, Minnesota
Highway 13 represents a typical
commercial strip found in most suburbs.
A cluttered mixture of signs,
architectural styles in an environment
dominated by autos characterize this
entrance to the City. Dahlgren, .�
Shardlow, & Uban, Inc. created a
strategy to improve the corridor's, ,•
image. The strategy includes public and
private improvements and amending the
Je—
comprehensive plan and zoning
f r
ordinance to conform to
recommendations derived from this _
visioning process.'
0 CD
•z
ao,•..a eum..w entry uoe�mem ` -��� _ \"\ '
ti I
1
I
-- _ =-•--- Central 3 East Area .`mW '``•,�[___ I / / /J( /')f
-b-Y owrn•a° mnul•s where Possible
outdoor asPlays 6 slgne /'
r ;.. grade road "O
i % �.• / /
SR / C _ •9rovld• up a ggnnng �J� �
` •galew^y der•logment r / 111
' (� -- a Ir•1••mall auto /�'O bl Oa
•0
'moo � bnCd <ommsrclai � - -����, �. 9a 6
near Co Rd. 5 NIerM Ion
—r .
❑
N 4
mdosirlal Partr_.
o �°°°;t�. ' ' ° � _ ❑;`S,: I o o� c'' y , ,, r ;`�,, - ,.� �b!4 — lam, -,
r i D r p.�� 49 /A.pa rop y '@
( oa 3n n d-Ual f�arre
i,6
r — � -1 0 �_Y 1 J • �Il -i i..'/ � ���� `�"�
L l
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
Fergus Falls Downtown Master Plan and Streetscape
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. lead
a team of consultants to develop an
economic restructuring strategy and
Master Plan for physical improvements
to the central business district and
riverfront. The process involved the c � �— r � •,�:^ _ -
community through a series of surveys,
interviews and design workshops to -r
formulate a vision for the City and
d jy I
action steps for implementation. `
The plan includes a framework open
space and pedestrian linkages which —
focus on the neglected Ottertail River ^ _ --
frontage. An amphitheater, boardwalk,
farmers market and riverfront trails are
all elements planned for areas the
community thought were lost to parking _ H
lots and buildings.
The first phase of construction which
includes streetscape improvements to four
blocks of the retail core will be Farmers Market and Boardwalk
� ompleted the Spring of 1992. The �� ~� ~ C--
Master Plan received a 1991 Merit
Award from the Minnesota Chapter of
the American Society of Landscape
Architects.
- w e
�W U
•T \
le J Dr
-
I _
Downtown Master Plan 4p
FERGUS FALLS
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
Central Park Master Plan
Roseville, Minnesota
Central Park is a unique three- hundred
acre community facility located in the
heart of Roseville. It serves as the
major open space linkage in the area,
provides a wide range of recreation
activities, and is an important focus of
community involvement. 1'`�✓
4
DSU, Inc. worked with the community i t � �tR � ` A ?��
to prepare an updated Master Plan and
preliminary cost estimates. The plan
incorporates several major new
facilities, addresses image and function
issues and illustrates ways of improving
the existing facilities.
IL
r
•
� r =j •{ r 1 �
� ' ♦ ACTIVE
RECREATION I'771 �(a i�l •
AL f J. Q Y -
��! �� � .. -- ,1e" ..._ �^� :• _ -� dam.. _. _ `_- 4 .
r r.
r
AF
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines
Chicago, Illinois
While associated with another firm, Tim
Griffin of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban,
Inc. directed their involvement in the
Chicago River Urban Design Guideline
Study. The guidelines set forth urban design
and development standards that will
eventually create a multilevel, continuous
riverwalk through the downtown.
The guidelines introduced urban design
standards into planned development F
negotiations. They were adopted as a City
Ordinance in 1991. The study received AIA
Urban Design Award in 1991.
Option A Option 8 I
J
r ✓
EAST MAIN BRANCH DISTRICT
Canter ` Arcade Opportunities
Permit structures for WOk Ma"Wn Hew corridor from Ogden
roCreBlbnW1 eclNlllas on sash bank Slip to Trili Tower (q
prafen,W order Weciw DrNe ()
iuiNOre
I � N(N:TN w�1Ee
• ,cec .. Retain south bank
° as park (1)
i e
r � I
L E G E N D Unk lWer edge and planned Provide additional
interior park In Illinois Center (5) staircases (3)
Addnbnal or knprwed
rkarslde walkway Improve street -ievel
• walkway on south bank (4)
Additional staircase
N
Potential development see
Numbers correspond to Rem In 'Opponunitles' section of tent .djjj*.
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
Nicollet Island Park
Minneapolis, Minnesota
While working for another firm, Geoff
Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban,
Inc. was part of the team of consultants
which designed Nicollet Island Park. '
This urban waterfront park is located on
the Mississippi River in the heart of the
historic St. Anthony Falls District.
The design incorporates a terraced plaza
and boardwalk which provide space for g
special events and spectacular views of
the St. Anthony Falls and the " ="
Minneapolis Skyline. The project ' R
received a Merit Award from the �.
Minnesota Chapter of the American x '
Society of Landscape Architects.
�i
h
= F
M k,
r ' 1 4 1v J ai
i
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
i
•
I
PROJECT COST
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 24
SCHEDULE AND COST As indicated in Figure 2, Preliminary Work Program, we have proposed
ESTIMATE a scheduled of six months to complete the Brooklyn Boulevard
Redevelopment Study. This time frame will provide ample time for
local review, discussion and citizen participation and can be coor-
dinated with regular City meetings. Our estimated cost for completing
all phases of our proposed Work Program is $25,500.00. Out -of- pocket
costs will be invoiced at cost to the City. These include, but are not
limited to production, reproduction, printing of 100 copies of the final
report, long distance phone and facsimile charges, per diem expenses
when traveling in conjunction with the project, postage and delivery
charges, and photographic materials. These costs should not exceed
$3,000.00. A preliminary estimate of the labor cost of each task is
presented below.
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
LABOR COST SCHEDULE
Phase I
Task 101 Project Initiation $ 500.00
102 Base Map 500.00
103 Review of Past Studies 1,000.00
104 Issue Workshop 2,000.00
105 Optional Interviews n.i.p.
106 Background Studies 5,000.00
107 Optional Retreat n.i.p.
108 Synthesis 2,000.00
109 Working Conference 1,000.00 Two Months
TO TAL $ 12,000.00
Phase II
Task 201 Goals and Objectives $ 500.00
202 Alt. Corridor Concepts 4,000.00
203 Alt. Corridor Policies 2,000.00
204 Evaluation 1,000.00
205 Working Conference 1,000.00 Two Months
TOTAL $ 8,500.00
Phase III
Task 301 Draft Corridor Plan $ 2,000.00
302 Presentation 1,000.00
303 Final Report 2,000.00 Two Months
TOTAL $ 5,000.00
GRAND TOTAL $25,500.00 Six Months
DAIII,GRI�N, SIIARDLOW, AND U33AN Incorporated
Proposal for Brooklyn Center 9 April 1992 Page 2
SCHEDULE AND COST As indicated in Figure 2, Preliminary Work Program, we have proposed
ESTIMATE a scheduled of six months to complete the Brooklyn Boulevard
Redevelopment Study. This time frame will provide ample time for
local review, discussion and citizen participation and can be coor-
dinated with regular City meetings. Our estimated cost for completing
all phases of our proposed Work Program is $25,500.00. Out-of-pocket
costs will be invoiced at cost to the City. These include, but are not
limited to production, reproduction, printing of 100 copies of the final
report, long distance phone and facsimile charges, per diem expenses
' conjunction with the project p ostage e and deliv
when traveling m � p J , p g
charges, and photographic materials. These costs should not exceed
$3,000.00. A preliminary estimate of the labor cost of each task is
presented below.
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
LABOR COST SCHEDULE
Phase I
Task 101
Project Initiation $500.00
102 Base Map 500.00
103 Review of Past Studies 1,000.00
104 Issue Workshop 2,000.00
105 Optional Interviews n.i.p.
106 Background Studies 5,000.00
107 Optional Retreat n.i.p.
108 Synthesis 2,000.00
109 Working Conference 1,000.00 Two Months
TOTAL $12,000.00
Phase II
Task 201 Goals and Objectives $ 500.00
202 Alternate Corridor 4,000.00
Concepts
203 Alternate Corridor 2,000.00
Policies
204 Evaluation 1,000.00
205 - 1;000.00
206 Working Conference 1,000.00 Two Months
TOTAL $ 8,500.00
Phase III
Task 301 Draft Corridor Plan $ 2,000.00
302 Presentation 1,000.00
303 Final Report 2,000.00 Two Months
TOTAL $ 5,000.00
GRAND TOTAL $25,500.00 Six Months
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN Incorporated
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Dated
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION - 50'S GRILL EXPANSION
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. AP ROVAL:
RONALD A. WARREN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
The planning staff have had discussions, on and off over the past year or so, with Mr. Jack
Schubert, owner of the 50's Grill, regarding a possible expansion of his building. The 50's
Grill is located at 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard (east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between
Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell Restaurant's).
Mr. Schubert claims that he needs to expand the kitchen area of his restaurant. He has also
indicated that we would like to add some additional seating. Expansion of the seating area is
prohibited because additional parking cannot be added to the site (the restaurant parking
formula requires 1 parking space for every two seats and two employees).
We have discussed a number of options for the building expansion to accommodate a larger
kitchen area. The kitchen is located along the south side of the building and the easiest way
to enlarge the kitchen would be simply to add to the south side of the building. The problem
is that Mr. Schubert needs to add about 10 feet to the building, while the existing building
wall is located approximately 15 feet from the south property line. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a 10 foot building setback from the property line which will allow a maximum
addition of only 5 feet. Other possible expansions and options would be much more costly
due to the need for interior remodeling.
We have also discussed the possibility of a variance to allow a lesser setback requirement.
But when viewed against the Standards for Variance contained in the Zoning Ordinance it
appears that the standards would not be met particularly with respect to uniqueness and
hardship. We have even discussed the possibility of seeking a variance in hopes of an
• ordinance amendment to change the setback requirements.
• Mr. Dean Nyquist, who represents Mr. Schubert, recently submitted a letter (attached)
outlining their proposal and suggesting some possible changes. He notes that Brooklyn
Center is changing from a developed community to a redevelopment community and that
tri i n
some res ct o s m v
beco e severe and unrealistic for gg
redevelopment. He suggests that there
p
should be some distinctions drawn between commercial and residential areas. He has
requested advice on how to proceed.
We have noted that the City Council has sought proposals for a Brooklyn Boulevard
redevelopment study that will include consideration of a number of restrictions affecting
commercial establishments along Brooklyn Boulevard as well as other areas. We have
suggested that the setback concern affecting the 50's Grill, as well as other establishments,
be included in this study. Mr. Nyquist would like an earlier response rather than the possible
fall conclusion of the study as Mr. Schubert would like to proceed with the building expansion
sooner than that. We have, therefore, put this item on for discussion with the City Council.
The staff is not prepared to recommend a change in the variance standards. It appears that
a great number of variance requests involve an economic hardship where an alternate plan
may be more costly. In our opinion this would not be an appropriate standard.
However, a change in side yard and interior yard setbacks might be appropriate. In some
respects this setback requirement is only an aesthetic concern and for the purpose of
keeping a reasonable separation between buildings primarily for maintenance purposes. Our
• ordinance already allows the waving of interior side yard setbacks in commercial and
industrial districts where abutting property owners wish to abut along a common wall built
along the property line. A lessening of the setback standard of 10 feet could be considered.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council discuss Mr. Nyquist's and Mr. Schubert's request.
Staff believes the question should be considered under the forthcoming study.
I
•
L, .Li
5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, Suite 200
Brooklyn Center, NiN 55429
AAfthk 1"I
Dean A. Nyquist, P.A. (612) 537 -6251
Wr Zmr14 166W,04 , / Attorney at Law Paralegal
Carol J. Smith
March 26, 1992
Mr. Ron Warren
Director of Planning & Inspection
6301 Shingle Crcek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: Our File No. 1318 -1
50's Grill
Dear Ron:
Our office represents the 50's Grill, with whom you are familiar,
I'm sure. It is the previous Farrell's Restaurant.
The owner of the 50's Grill, Jack Schubert, has done an excellent
job in turning it into a successful business. He has added much
and is a real credit to the business community.
He has enhanced his business to the point, however, so that he
needs additional space, particularly the kitchen area. (While he
could certainly use more seating, he's limited by parking restric-
tions).
To expand the kitchen adequately, the logical approach is to expand
toward the south toward the Kentucky Fried Chicken establishment.
To do so, however, would infringe on the present setback require -
ment.
It is virtually impossible to expand to the east since the
mechanical equipment, plumbing, etc., for the building is located
on the east side.
The only way to expand to the north would be to move the entire
internal facilities to the north and build on to the north. Either
of the last two are financially prohibitive.
To expand to the west would jeopardize already scarce parking.
The position taken by the City, with respect to variance, has been
rather restrictive. The criteria outlined in the City Ordinance
(Section 35 -240) is that several criteria must be met as follows:
Mr. Ron Warren
March 26, 1992
Page Two
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape,
or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of
land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would
result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if
the strict letter of the regulations ations
were to be carried
out.
b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance
is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
vai aIIC:C i i :� aught, a are not c cimmon, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
C) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of
this ordinance and has not been created by any persons
presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel
of land.
d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other land or improve-
ments in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
It has generally been construed that a financial hardship, irre-
spective of the magnitude, is not a hardship. In the real world,
it is more than a "mere inconvenience ". In fact, when I served on
the Council, I was often troubled by the strict application of
those guidelines. It just seemed to me that there were situations
that cried out for some assistance.
The City of Brooklyn Center, of course, is changing from and has
changed from a development community to a redevelopment community.
Such things as the Variance Ordinance and other restrictions become
severe and unrealistic in a redevelopment mode, although they
served very well in the development mode. It seems that there
should be some distinction drawn between commercial area and resi-
dential area.
We are contemplating applying for a variance. However, based on
previous application of the ordinance, a severe financial hardship
has not been considered a hardship. We would, therefore, propose
that there be consideration given to amending the ordinance. The
amendment that we would suggest is to either amend the setback
requirement or, in the alternative, add a Subparagraph (e) to the
ordinance which would, in essence, say: "In the case of redevel-
opment, remodeling, or expansion in a commercial /industrial zone,
a hardship is presumed if the financial impact of an alternate plan
not requiring a variance is times the cost of the proposed
plan".
Mr. Ron Warren
March 26, 1992
Page Three
Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Would you consider the
ordinance change without an application for variance, or would you
prefer to consider it in conjunction with an application for a
variance? Please advise.
While I believe you have the site and building plans on file at
your office, I am enclosing a rough sketch to refresh your memory
as to the layout of the building and parcel. I obviously am not
going to take up architecture!
Sincerely,
z o
C C.
7
Dean A. Nyquist
DAN:lq
Enclosure:
cc: Mr. Todd Paulson
Mr. Phil Cohen
Mr. Jerry Pedlar
Mr. Dave Rosene
Ms. Celia Scott
Mr. Jerry Splinter
Mr. Chuck LeFevere
Mr. Jack Schubert
N a 7
• L
r'
J!
tv\ �,jtcnt
ETC
i P�2o ?osl --n �
C—xPn C ,
K lE T t.c C (r-
kE y
V C tttClC Lti
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/11/92
Agenda Item Numberl
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR COMPLETION OF WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03A AND REPLACEMENT OF ENTRANCE
DRIVE TO LIFT STATION NO. 1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -11, CONTRACT 1992 -H
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy napp, 6irector of Public Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attachVd
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
•
At a previous meeting staff reported that Glendale Contracting, the City's
contractor for Water Distribution System Improvement 1990 -03, had declared
bankruptcy last winter, prior to completing the work. Accordingly, the City
Engineer prepared plans and specifications for the Completion of the Water
Distribution System, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A. In addition, restoring
the access drive to sanitary sewer lift station no.l and a small portion of
Brooklyn Drive are included in the proposed work as Improvement Project No. 1992-
11. The emergency work in that area last year included repair to the collapsed
pipe sections, but because of the early end of the constructions season, no
paving was attempted. For the purposes of administration and bidding, these two
improvements were combined into Contract 1992 -H.
Bids for this contract were received and opened on May 7th, 1992. The bids
submitted were as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. $ 93,076.30
Alber Construction $134,536.55
Of the 2 bids received, the low bid of $93,076.30 was submitted by Thomas and
Sons Construction, Inc., of Rogers, Minnesota. Thomas and Sons has considerable
experience in municipal work in the Metro area and have satisfactorily completed
• projects for the City of Brooklyn Center. Accordingly, staff recommends award of
the contract to Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc.
® RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution accepting bid and awarding contract to Thomas and Sons Construction,
Inc. is attached for consideration.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR COMPLETION
OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03A
AND REPLACEMENT OF ENTRANCE DRIVE TO LIFT STATION NO. 1,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -11, CONTRACT 1992 -H
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Contract 1992 -H,
bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the Deputy City Clerk and
Engineer, on the 7th day of May, 1992. Said bids were as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $ 93,076.30
Alber Construction $134,536.55
WHEREAS, it appears that Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. of Rogers,
Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract, in the amount of $93,076.30, with Thomas &
Sons, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of
Brooklyn Center, for Contract 1992 -H according to the plans and
specifications approved by the City Council and on file in the
office of the Deputy City Clerk.
2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all the bidders the deposits made with their bids,
except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next
lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
3. The estimated cost of Contract 1992 -H is hereby established
according to the following schedule:
RESOLUTION NO.
Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A, Completion of Water Distribution Syste
As Established Per
Low Bid
Contract $ 70,034.80
Contingency (5%) 3,501.74
Subtotal Construction $ 73,536.54
Staff Engineering (8%) 5,882.92
Admin. & Legal (2%) 1,470.73
Material Testing (1 %) 735.37
Total Estimated Cost
Improvement Proj. 1990 -03A $ 81,625.56
Improvement Project No. 1992 -11 Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station
No. 1
As Established Per
Low Bid
Contract $ 23,041.50
Contingency 1,152.08
Subtotal Construction $ 24,193.58
Staff Engineering (8%) 1,935.49
Admin. & Legal (2%) 483.87
Material Testing (1 %) 241.94
Total Estimated Cost
Improvement Proj. 1992 -11 26,854.88
Total Estimated Cost
Contract 1992 -H $108,480.44
4. All costs relating to Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A, Completion of
Water Distribution System, shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund.
5. All costs relating to Improvement Project No. 1992 -11, Replacement of
Entrance Drive to Lift Station No. 1, shall be charged to the Sanitary
Sewer Utility Fund.
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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 Council Mccting Date 05/11/92
Agenda Item Number�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BROOKDALE SANITARY SEWER
REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -04, CONTRACT 1992 -C
�c! e! e! eae! evexkXkk�kk >k�kkkkkkx�e>;c;e�eXe; exec! c! e! ea! cxe��scxycyex; c; exxxyereyc! ex�icteycxrcxyc; exk�kkrex!eicyexx�!eXeyeaexx
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy Knapp, ire or of Public Works
>,e icxxxxxx�'e!cxxx�c�xx>!c �c �e�ycxxx�c kxxxycx !eae>;cx �cx �c ac!c *a�ic xkx xjcx a',c �c rcrcxxx7;e��cxxxx;ex ae.t,x xxeycxxx>cxycx aex
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
® On March 23, 1992, the City Council approved plans and specifications and
authorized advertisement for bids for Trunk Sewer Replacement - Brookdale Area,
Improvement Project No. 1992 -04. Bids for this work were received and opened on
April 30, 1992. The bids submitted were as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Penn Contracting, Inc. $ 135,610.70
Brown & Cris, Inc. $ 144,114.00
Rice Lake Contracting $ 148,100.00
Lametti & Sons, Inc. $ 149,495.00
Barbarossa & Sons $ 166,504.60
Park Construction $ 166,671.00
Dave Perkins Contracting $ 183,905.00
Northdale Construction $ 196,137.00
Of the 8 bids received, the low bid of $ 135,610.70 was submitted by Penn
Contracting, Inc., of Centerville, MN. While Penn Contracting hasn't recently
performed work in Brooklyn Center, it appears from their references and materials
submitted with their bid that they are financially stable, and possess the
manpower and equipment necessary to complete the project as specified.
The Engineer's Estimate of construction cost was previously reported as $131,007.
Analysis of the bids indicates that the bidders more or less interpreted the
conditions of the project uniformly, and in no way submitted "unbalanced" bids.
The low bid, while being slightly higher (3%) than the Engineer's Estimate,
appears to have been submitted in good faith and is indicative of a competitive
• bidding process. Accordingly, staff recommends accepting the low bid and
awarding contract to Penn Contracting, Inc., of Centerville, Minnesota, in the
amount of $ 135,610.70.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution accepting bid and awarding contract to Penn Contracting, Inc. is
provided for consideration.
i
•
/36 ,
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BROOKDALE
SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -04,
CONTRACT 1992 -C
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement
Project No. 1992 -04, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City
Engineer on the 30th day of April, 1992. Said bids were as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Penn Contracting, Inc. $ 135,610.70
Brown & Cris, Inc. $ 144,114.00
Rice Lake Contracting $ 148,100.00
Lametti & Sons, Inc. $ 149,495.00
Barbarossa & Sons $ 166,504.60
Park Construction $ 166,671.00
Dave Perkins Contracting $ 183,905.00
Northdale Construction $ 196,137.00
WHEREAS, it appears that Penn Contracting, Inc. of Centerville,
Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
I. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract, in the amount of $135,610.70, with Penn
Contracting, Inc., of Centerville, Minnesota in the name of the
City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1992 -04
according to the plans and specifications approved by the City
Council and on file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk.
2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all the bidders the deposits made with their bids,
except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next
lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the estimated cost of Improvement Project
No. 1992 -04 is hereby amended according to the following schedule:
RESOLUTION NO.
As Amended Per
As Established Low Bid
Contract $ 131,007 $ 135,610.70
Contingency 19,651 (15 %) 6,780.30 (5%)
Subtotal Construction $ 150,658 $ 142,391.00
Staff Engineering (8%) $ 12,052 $ 11,391.00
Admin. & Legal (2%) 3,013 2,848.00
Geotechnical Services 1,775 1,775.00
Material Testing (1 %) 1,507 1,424.00
Total Est. Project Cost $ 169,005 $ 159,829.00
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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 Council Meeting Date 05/11/92
• Agenda Item Number /3 G
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR 69TH AVENUE SOIL CORRECTIONS PHASE I,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, CONTRACT 1991 -I
xxye �c,ic Xe ;e �c Xc �c ye,jt,kyt,;c,kyc(e�c,;e,c�yc �C yyx !ex he ;c!cx!e acxyc !c �c acxxxic ye ie rc vcx ac yc ac ac rcxxxxxxsc !c yc ac �c ye re !c !e Yc yc rc k x!c !cx x!cxac
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy napp, Director of Public Works
rcxxx�cx �c ;cyc *ae�,e�>;cx ac �c ic��xY,c�xx>;cxx�;c;c�ycx ac �c �c !c jc �cxx *xxxx>,cx x;crc >;ex izx xi,<xxycx_ *X iF �!cx � ac x>c yc a;C
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
kX kxkx k k k�kkk> kK�xk> kk? �Xkkkkk�kkkXkkkkkkKk�> K> k�k�> kkk�k�K�> kFkkkkKXkkkX�Kkk;cac>;crcxyc�c!ca,cxge
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
On March 23, 1992 staff and SEH Inc. submitted a detailed report to the Council
relating to the January failure that occurred in the surcharge area through
Palmer Lake. At that time we recommended the installation of a wick drain system
which will hasten the drainage process, so as to achieve the required
consolidation settlement. Using this process, SEH and STS believe it will be
possible to achieve stability so as to allow completion of the roadway through
Palmer Lake in 1993. Based on this information the City Council authorized SEH
to conduct negotiations with Ames Construction for the installation of a wick
drain system.
SEH has now completed negotiations with Ames Construction, and Ames has agreed to
execute a Change Order to install the wick drain system at a cost of $113,010.08.
This compares to the $155,000 estimate of costs which we reported to the Council
on 3/23/92.
Staff recommends approval of this Change Order.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution approving the Change Order is provided for consideration by the City
Council.
r
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR 69TH AVENUE SOIL
CORRECTIONS PHASE I, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10,
CONTRACT 1991 -I
WHEREAS, a failure has occurred in the soil correction phase of 69th
Avenue Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, Contract 1991 -I; and
WHEREAS, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH Inc.) has prepared
Change Order No. 2 to the contract, providing for the installation of wick
drains and other devices to stabilize the soil correction process; and
WHEREAS, Ames Construction has agreed to complete all work specified
under Change Order No. 2 at a cost of $113,010.08; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that execution of
Change Order No. 2 is necessary to assure the proper completion of the
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 1991 -I in the amount of
$113.010.08 is hereby approved.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute Change Order No. 2 on behalf of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
3. All costs associated with this Change Order shall be charged to
MSA Account No. 1496.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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.
law CHANGE ORDER
1dEWqi ;:m-
ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490 -2000
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota May 4, 1992
OWNER DATE
City Imp. 1990 -10; S.A.P. 109 - 125 -05 2
OWNERS PROJECT NO. CHANGE ORDER NO.
69th Ave. Phase I Reconstruction 90277.01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEH FILE NO.
The following changes shall be made to the contract documents
Descnption:
Add items to the contract to compensate the contractor for installing wick
drains and a stabilization berm in accordance with the enclosed Technical
Specifications and revised plan sheet numbers 1 through 8 dated respectively
April 17, 1992 and April 2, 1992.
Purpose of Change Order.
To stabilize the existing organic material by removing groundwater and
relieving the pore pressure such that the surcharge can be continued to
provide for the construction of the roadway in 1993.
Basis of Cost: ❑ Actual IN Estimated
Attachments (list supporting documents) Technical specifications dated April 17, 1992
Plan Sheets 1 - 8 dated April 2, 1992
Contractor's quote and subcontractor references for C.O. #2
CONTRACT STATUS Time Cost
Original Contract June 1, 1992 $614,937.30
Net Change Prior C.O.'s 1 to 2 4,660,Q0
Change this C.O. July 1, 1993' $113,010.08
Revised Contract $732,607.38
Recommended for Approval: SHORT-ELUOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. By
Richard E. Moore, P.E.
Agre to ontractorr Approve or Owner.
. / �
u
BY BY
TITLE
BY
Distribution Contractor 2 Owner 1 Project Representative 1 sEH Office 1 MSA Office 1
SHORT EW07 ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS,
HENDRICKSON INC. MINNE ,OTA WISCONSIN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/11/92 —/
• Agenda Item Number �C7
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SEH INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE SOIL CORRECTIONS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1990 -10
! crcrcx! c�c��e�cyc�c�c�cXc�cycjc�c�c�cyc�c��cxcycaexat! c( c; cxxacacrcxxx�c�e! cic; cx�c�cxx�c�cacxxxyc�acx >,crchcxxxxxre�crc�cxx, x>;c!cycxxye
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy knapp, Director of Public Works
M ic>; c } cac! c! cMrcycrceJeac} cc* �e ycacyc�cyc�e xyc�c> kx c xxycXcxcyc! cac �cax >;e}c}cycrc * >Y>;c>c�c *'.1�4,afycyc!e
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ' ~ �> P ;` -� '.:>
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attach'6d
xxe! cx>; c�c��c�ckkk* kk; e; ekkkkkyck; cxx�cXc! c�cyc* ! ckkkkx�cx? c�c, �c! e( eyc! c! ckyekka* scsc, tcacyeyctc! c! cycxyck��cyc�acx!cyck!c!cae
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
• Note This item is directly related to the previous agenda item — i.e. — Change
Order No. 2 to the 69th Avenue Soil Correction contract.
At the March 23, 1992 meeting staff estimated the additional engineering costs
relating to the installation of the wick drain system to be $35,000. SEH has now
submitted a proposed amendment (copy attached) to their existing agreement with
the City, wherein they agree to perform the required service, at a cost not to
exceed $33,000. It is noted that they now estimate those costs to be in the
range of $25,000 to $30,000. However, because of the unpredictability of the
soil correction process, they have proposed the not -to- exceed $33,000 figure.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution approving the amendment with SEH Inc. is provided for consideration
by the City Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SEH INC. TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE SOIL
CORRECTIONS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10
WHEREAS, on April 22, 1991 the City of Brooklyn Center entered into
an agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH Inc.) to provide
engineering services relating to 69th Avenue Soil Corrections, Improvement
Project No. 1990 -10; and
WHEREAS, a failure occurred in the surcharge area of Palmer Lake
during the soil correction process, and it is necessary for the City to obtain
additional engineering services to provide for the design, construction,
observation and testing for a wick drain system and stabilization embankment;
and
WHEREAS, SEH Inc. has submitted a proposed amendment to that
agreement wherein they propose to provide the required professional services
at a cost not -to- exceed $33,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed amendment to the agreement between SEH Inc. and the
City of Brooklyn Center, to provide the additional professional
services required at a cost not -to- exceed $33,000 is hereby
accepted and approved.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute a said amendment on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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.
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
AND
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.
FOR
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
69TH AVENUE - PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS
EMBANKMENT AND WETLAND MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION
CITY IMPROVEMENT NO. 1990 -10
SEH FILE NO: 90277
The Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. dated April 22, 1991 is hereby amended as
set forth and is annexed and made part of the original contract.
I. Exhibit A - Scope of Work
III. Basic Services of the Engineer
WHEREAS, since a failure occurred in the procedure for consolidating the
native organic soils within the proposed right -of -way and by further tests and
analysis; it has been determined that it would be beneficial to the City of
Brooklyn Center to amend the contract to provide for the design, construction
observation and additional testing for a wick drain system and stabilization
embankment; NOW, THEREFORE; The Engineer shall provide the following
services to the City:
• Prepare technical specifications for wick drain installation.
• Installation of settlement plates (3), alignment /heave stakes (8) and
inclinometer (1).
• Observation of toe berm placement, wick drain installation and
embankment fill placement and compaction.
• Obtaining pore pressure cell and inclinometer readings and assisting with
settlement plate elevation surveys.
• Engineering site visits, instrumentation review and geotechnical evaluation
during construction.
• End -of- surcharge vane shear and laboratory testing with final engineering
evaluation and summary report.
II. Schedule A - Payments to the Consultant
The total compensation to the consultants for the services described above shall
increase the total engineering contract by an amount not to exceed of $33,000.
Compensation to the Engineer will be on an hourly basis in accordance with the
contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this amendment to be executed
and approved on the day of 1992.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SH T ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.
/ r
Mayor Department Manager
City Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 11, 1992
Agenda Item Number %
E
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
•
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
GREENS MOWER FOR THE GOLF COURSE
DEPT. APPROVAL:
A Q�Q�
Patricia A. age, Deputy City Clerk
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:`'
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
A greens mower was proposed to be purchased for Centerbrook Golf Course in 1992. Two
quotations have been received for this piece of equipment. I recommend acceptance of the
quotation from MTI Distributing Co. in the amount of $10,628.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
I recommend approval of the attached resolution.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1) GREENS MOWER FOR THE GOLF COURSE
WHEREAS it is necessary to
P purchase a greens mower for
Centerbrook Golf Course; and
WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows:
Company Ouote
MTI Distributing Co. $10,628.00
Wayzata Lawn Mower $10,878.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) Toro
Greensmaster 3000 mower from MTI Distributing Co., in the amount of
$10,628.00 is hereby approved.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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 Coamed Mewing Da May 11, 19
Agenda Item Nvmber ,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIP'T'ION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND APPROVING PURCHASE OF VEHICLE
RETARDER FOR ENGINE 6
DEPT. APPROVAL:
0 , P A,()XL--
Patricia A. Pa &, Deputy City Clerk 4
• < t
O ! M',
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOA�IlVENDATION.
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SU DIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
• An appropriation of $10,500 was approved in the 1992 Fire Department budget for the purchase
of a vehicle retarder for Engine 6. The vehicle retarder increases the braking power of the fire
engine which is necessary because of the weight of all the equipment installed on Engine 6.
Rihm Motor Company is the only authorized vendor of the Telma Retarder which is the necessary
piece of equipment for Engine 6. We have received a quote from Rihm Motor Company in the
amount of $8,555.
I recommend acceptance of the quote and authorization to purchase the Telma Retarder from
Rihm Motor Company, in the amount of $8,555.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
I recommend approval of the attached resolution.
•
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND APPROVING PURCHASE OF
VEHICLE RETARDER FOR ENGINE 6
WHEREAS, an appropriation of $10,500 was approved in the
1992 Fire Department budget for the purchase of a vehicle retarder
for Engine 6; and
WHEREAS, there is only one authorized vendor for this
piece of equipment; and
WHEREAS, a quote of $8,555 was received for the vehicle
retarder for Engine 6 from Rihm Motor Company.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of a vehicle retarder for
Engine 6 from Rihm Motor Company in the amount of $8,555 is hereby
approved.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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 Council Meeting Date Mav 11.1992
Agenda ltcm Numbel—
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
rrEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DALE ACKMANN, HENNEPIN COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
DEPT. APPROVAL:
P.
P a-C
Patricia A. ge, Deputy City Clerk
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION:
7 yr
�i
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SU DL4,RY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
I recommend approval of the attached resolution.
•
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR
THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DALE ACKMANN, HENNEPIN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, Dale Ackmann, has served the government and
citizens of Hennepin County for 27 years in several different
capacities; and
WHEREAS, for the past 15 years Dale Ackmann has served as
Hennepin County Administrator; and
WHEREAS, Dale Ackmann retired from Hennepin County on
April 30, 1992; and
WHEREAS, Dale Ackmann has been a resident of the City of
Brooklyn Center for ten years; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the
betterment of the community and county merit the gratitude of the
citizens of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service 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 Dale
Ackmann is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of
Brooklyn Center.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date May 1 1, 1992
Agenda Item Number /3 /!
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k K k k k k K k k M k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k K k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF
FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES
kkkKk& kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk& kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk* kk* kkkkkkkk *kk *kkkkk>kkk
DEPT. APPROV
Jameyfind y, Chief of P '
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *x* * * * ** * * * * * * ** * 1-1*
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONENAENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
• The police department has $3,702 in forfeiture monies currently available. The police department's
forfeiture committee has met and considered requests. The committee also prioritized the requests for
purchase as funds become available. At this time there is sufficient forfeiture monies available to
request the purchase of the top two prioritized items.
The first item is a VCR conversion /copy unit. This is a used item we would be purchasing from the
St. Paul Police Department. It consists of a monitor, a VCR and a copy unit. This item allows the
department to view the tapes produced by the special security VCR units used by numerous businesses
throughout the community. It also allows us to make a copy of a specific frame of the tape, if desirable
for use as such things a photo of a suspect for distribution. The items if purchased new would cost
more than $3,700; however St. Paul Police had some newer equipment donated to them and is willing
to sell this equipment for $1,500. Currently, if we wish to view these types of tapes, we must view
them at the stores and cannot bring them back to the station and cannot make copies of specific frames
of the tape for distribution. We would also need to purchase a stand for this unit which would cost
approximately $210; which brings the total to $1,710.
The second item to be purchased is a color printer. This would allow the department to make color
transparencies and items for special reports. Although there will be a color printer in the machine room
available on the network, there are some logistic problems with the item being on different floors. The
forfeiture committee believed that with the low cost of the item it would be worthwhile to purchase one
for use in the police department. As the printer also works in plain black, it would also give us a spare
printer in case another goes down in the department. The cost of this item is $689.
• The 2 rand total for the above listed items would be
g $, 399.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council adopt the resolution approving purchase of equipment and authorizing the transfer of
funds from drug forfeiture monies.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES
WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide
for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if
the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the
actual receipts; and
WHEREAS, the actual receipts for the drug forfeiture
account #3897 do exceed the estimates by $2,399; and
WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C.665 provides for
seizure and forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and
proceeds of crime and contraband; and
WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under
said laws may be used only in the performance of official duties of
the appropriate agency and may not be used for any other purpose;
and
WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of property may be used by the
Brooklyn Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating
fund for use in law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution
No. 88 -195 on November 21, 1988; did authorize the Director of
Finance to appropriate said proceeds to the Police Department
Budget as they are received to the extent that said proceeds exceed
five thousand dollars in any calendar year and then said excess
will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Chief of Police have
recommended the purchase of 1 VCR converter/ copier unit and 1
DeskJet color printer; and have further recommended that these
costs be appropriated from the balance of the drug forfeiture
money.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the purchase of equipment at
a total cost of $2,399; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to authorize an appropriation of
$2,399 from forfeited property proceeds for these purchases and
costs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1992 General Fund
Budget as follows:
RESOLUTION NO.
Increase the Estimated Revenues from Forfeited Drug Money
(3479) by $2,399.
Increase Department 31, Police Protection, 4552 Other
Equipment by $2,399.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy 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 council Meeting Date 5/11/92
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
LICENSES
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council.
• RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve licenses.
i
•
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 11, 1992:
AMUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR
Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
ief of Police^^((''
AL
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Aer, Inc. Box 1146
Air Conditioning Assoc., Inc. 689 Pierce Butler Route
Brooklyn Air Heating & A/C 5801 Lyndale Ave. N.
C. 0. Carlson Air Cond. Co. 1203 Bryant Ave. N.
Construction Mechanical Services, Inc. 1307 Sylvan St.
LSV Metals, Inc. 6800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
McQuillan Brothers Plumbing & Htg. Co. 452 Selby Ave.
Rapid Heating & A/C 5514 34th Ave. N.
Realistic Heating & Cooling, Inc. 9077 Van Buren St. NE n . /) da � 'L &m
Sharp Heating & A /C, Inc. 4854 Central Ave. NE l lam(
Building Official
J�-
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP
Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
City Clerk
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Renewal:
Randy McGovern 5830 Admiral Lane
Duane Orn MD 5407 Brooklyn Blvd.
Maurice & Barbara Moriarty 2825 67th Lane N.
Diane & Eugene Wright 4408 69th Ave. N. w
Director of Planning i atc
and Inspections
SIGN HANGER
Nordquist Sign Company, Inc. 312 West Lake Street
Building Official Ak
SWIMMING POOL
Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Sanitarian
TAXICAB
Blue and White Taxi, JJ525 7720 36th Ave. N.
of of
Police
GENERAL APPROVAL: Q.
P. Page, Dep qy Clerk