HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 10-13 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
OCTOBER 13, 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. September 28, 1992 - Regular Session
8. Appointment of Election Judges:
*a. Additional Election Judges for November 3, 1992, General
Election
9. Public Hearing: (7:30 p.m.)
a. Initial Application for Private Kennel License
Debra L. Schlick, 6727 Perry Avenue North
10. Ordinances: (7:15 p.m.)
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 -120 of the Brooklyn
Center Code of Ordinances, Prohibiting Parking on City
Streets between the Hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
-This ordinance was offered for a first reading on
September 14, 1992, published in the City's official
newspaper on September 23, 1992, and is offered this
evening for a second reading.
b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Relating to Side Yard Setbacks in Commercial and
Industrial Districts
-This ordinance was offered for a first reading on
September 14, 1992, published in the City's official
newspaper on September 23, 1992, and is offered this
evening for a public hearing and second reading.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 13, 1992
11. Discussion Items:
a. Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee
Recommendation to Develop a Feasibility Study for a
Street Improvement Program
1. Resolution Accepting Proposals for Professional
Services for Development of a Feasibility Study of a
Neighborhood Street Improvement Program
b. Staff Report Regarding Drainage Problem in the Vicinity
of 67th Avenue and Perry Avenue
1. Resolution Establishing Project No. 1992 -25,
Installation of Culverts Near the Intersection of
67th Avenue and Perry Avenue, Approving Agreement
with Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
Allocating Funds Therefore
C. Staff Report Regarding Tree Planting
d. Request by Village Properties, the Owners of Evergreen
Park Manor Apartments, to Expand an Existing Agreement
with the City of Brooklyn Center to Acquire Additional
Land
e. 1993 Budget for North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau
f. Update on Brooklyn Boulevard Study
g. Metro 2015: Vision and Goals
12. Resolutions:
*a. Giving Host Approval to the Issuance of Health Care
Revenue Bonds, Series 1992 (Group Health Plan, Inc.
Project)
*b. Approving Change Order No. 3 to 69th Avenue
Reconstruction, Phase II, Contract 1992 -B
*c. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of
Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 10/13/92)
*d. Appropriating Funds and Authorizing the Water Utility
Fund to Purchase a Cash Drawer and Receipt Printer to
Replace the Cash Register at the Reception Desk
13. Performance Bond Release:
*a. Brookdale Pontiac
14. Consideration of Specified License:
*a. Class B and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License
for Days Inn
*15. Licenses
16. Adjournment
10 -13 -92
To: Mayor Paulson & Members of the City Council
From: Phil Cohen
Re: ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL SPENDING POLICY:
Action: Referring this request to the Financial commission
for their consideration and recommendations.
Since we now have in place a policy that addresses the
general fund operating funds and use of reserves, , the
council should consider having a policy that deals with
capital spending and use of those reserves.
We have had discussions on major expenditure items like the
remodeling of the existing city hall, building a new city
hall, senior citizen center, etc.
The financing of these improvements will be very costly and
would be of major financial significance to the citizens of
Brooklyn Center.
The methods of financing - if funds are available would be
to pay cash for them or by voter approval issue general
obligation bonds, or a combination.
In addition any building projects would have to be also
estimated for annual cost of operations, which would fall
back on the general fund.
With this questions in mind, I felt it would be timely to
have the council consider this issue and then refer it to
the Financial Commission for their review and
recommendations.
0,-- E7 1-a175 wu:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date October n 1992
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION
DEPT. APPROVAL: �- O
Patti A. Page, Deputy City Clerk
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOADIENDATION: A=
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
f
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKL N CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND TH STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
SEPTEMI ER 28, 1992
C1T` � HALL
CALL TQ ORDER �
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor
Todd Paulson at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celi Scott, Jerry Pedlar, lave Rosene, and Philip
Cohen. Also present were City Manager Perald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy
Knapp, Director of Planning and lnspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere
and Council Secretary Nancy Berg.
i
OPENING CEREMONIES
Ted Willard offered the invocation
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session
this evening. He inquired if there was any ne present who wished to address the Council.
There being none, he continued with the r gular agenda items.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Paulson introduced Trevor Hampton, the new Brnoklyn Center Chief of Police. He
weluuino,d Mr. Hampton to the community on this, his first day on the job.
Mr. Hampton thanked Mayor Paulson andIstated it was a pleasure to be here. He stated
he has enjoyed the time he has spent here, �nd the police department members lie has met
have been extremely uplifting.
Councilmember Rosene informed the Council; he and three Commission members, Kathleen
Carmody, Julie Eoloff and Agatha Eckman attended the Annual Conference of the League
of Minnesota stated it w ve informative
hel ' Crysta stat as
s missions in C
td Human R ights Commissions rY
g � �
and the Commission was very enthusiastic.,
i
Councilmember Rosene also stated on O�tober 13 he will be unable to attend the City
Council meeting until later in the evening �s he has parent/tcacher conferences. lic stated
9 /28/9 2 - 1 -
i
there might be times during the evening when his schedule would be open, and he suggested
he might be able to observe the meeting on able 'l'V and could conceivably call in during
the meeting. He explained technology is eha aging in ways which were not thought of in the
City Charter,
Councilmember Pedlar asked staff to bring ack to the next Council meeting an update on
the Brooklyn Boulevard Study.
i
AP PROVAL F AGENDA AND CONSE T AGEN
Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmem ers requested any items be rcluoved from the
consent agenda. Councilmember Pedlar re uested item 12b be removed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14. 1992 - REGULAR SESION
There was a motion by Councilmember Scot and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
approve the minutes of September 14, 1992,1regular session as printed. The motion passed
unanimously,
SEPTEMBER 15, 19_ 92- SPECIAL SESSI N
There was a motion by Councilmember Scone and seconded by Councilmembcr Rosene to
approve the minutes of September 15, 1992, special session as printed. The motion passed
unanimously,
I
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO, 92 - 230
Member Celia Scott uilroduced the followi�g resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION - DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE
REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO DST 09%28/92)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoin resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene, and the motion passed unanimous y .
RESOLUTION NO, 92 -231
Member Celia SWU introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 199 GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FEES
RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENTS Y STUDY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoin resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene, and the motion passed unanimous y.
9/28/92 1- 2 -
RESOLUTIQN NO, 92 -232
Member Cclia Scott introduccd the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL HOT WATER
REPLACEMENT OF PIPING IN CIVIC CENTER SYSTEM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO 92 -233
Member a-lia Swtt introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF LEROY CHRISTENSON
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously,
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
approve the following list of licenses:
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Archibald Candy Corporation
d/b /a Fanny Farmer Candy Shop 1236 Brookdalc Center
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brooklyn Center Lioness 5552 Aldrich Drive N.
Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N.
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial;
Robert and Marilyn Cashman 5430 Humboldt Ave. N.
Renewal:
Town's Edge properties Brookhaven Apartments
Eugene J. Sullivan 5329 -33 Brooklyn Blvd.
James JustlWelcome Home, Inc. 6451 Brooklyn Blvd.
Don McGillivray/Dion Properties, Inca 5740 Dupont Ave. N.
Jerry and Randall Tyson 5137 -39 France Ave. N.
Timothy and Karen Pfingsten 6706 Grimes Ave. N.
Daniel and Georgette Kitchin 5601 Logan Ave. N.
9/28/92 /2 /92 -
- 3
Kenneth W. Kunz 5641 Lyndale Ave. N.
Michael Shapira 5115 East Twin Lakc 131vd.
Richard R. Dawson 3955 69th Ave. N.
The motion passed unanimously.
PRESENTATION
Chief Boman presented the emergency plan to the City Council, Chief Boman used slides
to show how the plan works and how it was put together so the City can operate in the case
of tornado, flood, or any type of natural disaster.
Councilmember Cohen asked if the emergency plan would be affective if something
happened with the Monticello nuclear plant and Chief Boman answered yes, the plan
addresses such disasters.
Councilmember Cohen also asked if the City is struck by a tornado, who is financially
responsible for the clean -up`?
i
The City Manager answered unless it is a national disaster, the City is responsible for the
cost of clean -up.
Councilmember Cohen asked if the City has money in the financial plan for such a disaster.
The City Manager answered the City has funds it could borrow from, but then the City
would have to replenish these funds,
Councilmember Rosene asked if there was a disaster, would enough emergency personnel
be able to respond in a short period of time. The City Manager stated the City tested the
response time on a Saturday morning and 50 to 65 percent of the people were able to
respond.
Mayor Paulson asked who is notified in the case of an emergency. The City Manager
answered if there is time the City Manager is notified, and he in turn notifies the Mayor aiid
the City Council. He explained at times the process is started without the notification of the
Council or the City Manager unless there is a need for the National Guard.
Mayor Paulson also asked if the same system is used in the case of a missing child. The City
Manager answered yes,
9/28/92 -4-
PUBLIC HEARING
INITI I ATION _
AL L C S F1�1� PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE AT �6 62ND
AVENUE NORTH AND 3300 QUARLES ROAD
The City Manager presented the initial applications for private kennel license at 516 - 62nd
Avenue North and 3300 Quarles Road, He stated Chapter 1 of the Brooklyn Ccntcr City
Ordinances requires licensing of all private kennels on which three or more dogs are kept
or harbored as pets and not for selling, boarding, showing, treating, grooming or other
commercial purposes. He recommended the City Council hold separate hearings and make
separate recommendations.
INITIAL APpLYCATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE AT 516 - 62ND AVENUE
NORTH
The City Manager stated he had denied the application for private kennel license at 516 -
62nd Avenue North and he recommended if the City Council chooses to affirm the decision
of the City Manager to deny a private kennel license, the Council should allow a maximum
Of six months to come into compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than
two dogs on the premises.
Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the application
for private kennel license at 516 - 62nd. Avenue North at 7:37 p. He inquired if there was
anyone present who wished to address the Council.
Richard Strong, 516 - 62nd Avenue North, stated he was unaware of the City Ordinance
prohibiting three dogs. He said he has two male St. Bernards and one female St. Bernard.
At the time he ordered the dogs, he was living in Isanti County and because of a pending
divorce he is presently living with his father in Brooklyn Center. He explained the original
kennel was inadequate and the dogs were often loose. However, he has built a new kennel
and the dogs cannot get out of this one. He stated the dogs are not barkers and the kennel
is kept clean. He further stated he will not breed the dogs while living in Brooklyn Center,
Couneilmember Rosene stated neighbors were concerned about breeding, and Brooklyn
Center is not the right environment for a large number of dogs He noted the Sanitarian
found the kennel to be clean and the dogs were wellcared for and quiet. He further stated
some neighbors said they had seen some treatment of the dogs which was unacceptable.
Clair Mattson, 515 - 62nd Avenue North, stated he had observed Mr. Strong harshly
disciplining the dogs and had to clean up his yard after the dogs.
Couneilmember pedlar asked Mr. Mattson if he had noticed an improvement since Mr.
Strong built the new kennel. Mr. Mattson answered yes it is much better.
Couneilmember P dlar asked Mr. Mattson if h t ho ug ht the dos were wellcared f Mr.
e c t oug g for.
Mattson answered he had seen other St. Bernards cared for better.
9/28/92 - 5 -
Cheryl Hawkins, 521 - 62nd Avenue North, stated before the new kennel there was a
problem with the dogs running around, but no problems now. Ms. Hawkins further stated
the dogs are well groomed, and she does not see any problem with the dogs or the kennel.
Janice Baertschy, 520 - 62nd Avenue North, stated since the new kennel there are no
problems at all. She further stated the dogs rarely bark.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
close the public hearing at 7:52 p,m, The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Rosene asked the City Manager why the application was denied. The City
Manager answered he thought six months was a reasonable time to remove one dog, and he
did not know the full situation in regard to Mr. Strong's plans to move in the near future.
Councilmember Cohen stated this community is not the place to have kennels. He
concurred with the City Manager's recommendation as a matter of community public policy.
Councilmember Rosene agreed the Council does not want to encourage kennels. He stated
denial is the best route to take but he would like to see a more liberal time limit set because
of Mr. Strong's present situation,
Councilmember Pedlar agreed kennels simply do not belong in Brooklyn Center. He
recommended denial with up to one year to remove one of the dogs.
Councilmember Scott stated the Council has received numerous kennel applications, and the
Council usually only allows six months to remove the extra animals,
Councilmember Rosene stated Mr. Strong seems to have things under control, and the
neighbors are not concerned. He stated the Council should deny the application and set a
firm limit of one year for removal,
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
deny the kennel license application at 516 - 62nd Avenue North with a firm limit of one year
to come into compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on the
premises.
Councilmember Rosene asked Mr. Mattson if he was satisfied with the limit of one year.
Mr. Mattson answered yes, if Mr. Strong complies,
The motion passed unanimously.
9/28/92 -
-6-
INITIAL APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENN L LICENSE AT 3300 QUARLES
ROAD
The City Manager stated he had denied the private kennel license at 3300 Quarles Road,
and recommended a maximum of three months to come into compliance with City
Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on the premises.
Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on initial application
for private kennel license at 3300 Quarles Road at 8:10 p.m. He inquired if there was
anyone present who wished to address the Council.
Dale and Kathy Thompson, 3300 Quarles Road, explained to the Council they now have
kennels in the house and outside, and the dogs are always In a kennel. The Thompsons
further explained they are hoping to purchase a farm soon.
Councilmember Rosene asked the Thompsons if they are aware a number of letters have
been received opposing their application. They answered they were not aware of the
opposition until tonight.
William Clark, 3306 Quarles Road, read a statement to the Council:
In response to the Notice of Appeal of Application for Private Kennel License re:
Dale Allen Thompson.
We live next door west of the Thompsons at 3306 Quarles Road, and we are very
much opposed to them being granted a kennel license,
The southwest corner of their metal pen and recently installed privacy board fence,
is only fourteen feet from our family room and only five feet away from our patio
slab where we grill and have our picnic table, umbrella, etc.
Since the Thompsons moved here, in the spirit of being a good neighbor, we have
endured the barking of two big dogs who were part wolf, and the smell of dog
manure. Now they want to replace the two deceased dogs with four, doubling the
barking and manure. The replacement dogs are also big dogs. Their new fence does
not shut out the harking noise nor the: smell,
In our opinion, giving them a kennel license would devalue our property, as I surely
would not buy a house right next door. to a dog kennel.
We note NO LICENSE. This is in every way a public answer.
Mr. Clark provided the Couneilmembers photos showing the pen, fence, and his patio.
9/28/92 -7-
David Holzknecht, 3307 Quarles Road, stated the Thompsons are nice people but he did
not think a residential area is the place for a kennel -- the odor is bad, the barking is bad. 0
Judy Wetley, 3213 66th Avenue North, stated she has four grandchildren and is afraid the
children will put their hands through the privacy fence and be bitten. She asked if the
owners are required to have insurance covering dog bites.
The City Attorney answered there is no legal requirement. It is a question a jury would
have to answer.
Councilmember Rosene stated he felt at this point he would vote to uphold the City
Manager's denial. He stated he was worried about the relations in the community.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Councilmember Pedlar asked if all members of the audience were opposed. The answer was
yes,
Councilmember Rosene asked if three months is enough time to be in compliance with this
ordinance. The City Manager explained he recommended three months due to the number
of citizen responses and the Sanitarian's report.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
accept the City Manager's denial and recommendation of three months to come into
compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on the premises.
The motion passed unanimously.
RE,=
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
The City Manager presented Planning Commission Applicatiun No. 92013. He explained
the application is a request for planned unit development approval to rezone the R7 district
at the intersection of Summit Drive and the east leg of Earle Brown Drive to PUD /MIXED
and to grant site and building plan approval to construct 90 units of assisted housing
(residential care in three buildings on the vacant parcel adjacent to the Earle Brown
Commons.
The Director of Planning and Inspection used transparencies to show the Council the area
being considered. He explained the Council. will be considering three separate actions oil
Application No. 92013 as follows:
9/28/92 - 8 -
1. An ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances relating to general
standards for planned unit developments,
2. Resolution regarding disposition of Application No. 92013 submitted by
Evergreen Development Group.
3. An ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding zoning
designation of certain land.
Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 92013 at 9.15 p.m. Fie inquired if there was anyone present
who wished to address the Council.
Councilmember Scott expressed being in favor of changing the ordinance saying the project
will service a need for the community. She further stated the project is very compatible with
the surrounding properties.
Councilmember Rosene complimented staff for recommending this project stating it is a
good proposal for this property.
Councilmember Cohen asked staff if this will be in the tax increment district. The City
Manager answered yes, it is and this will accelerate the pay -off.
Bob Hopman of Evergreen Development showed the Council an artist's rendering of the
project and answered questions of the Council.
Councilmember Cohen asked if $1,300 a month is an accurate estimate of the monthly rent.
Mr. Hopman answered the estimate is based on the rents currently being charged in Fargo,
North Dakota for the same type of facility.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned the residents of .Brooklyn Center will be
unable to afford such a monthly rent,
Mr. Hopman explained the monthly rent of approximately $1,300 includes all meals, laundry,
transportation, daily activities, all of the housekeeping, and towels and linens. He further
explained there is a certified care -giver on duty 24 hours a day.
Councilmember Pedlar asked if a single person's rent will be $1,300, how much more will
a couple be charged. Mr, Hopman explained 'a Couple would be charged an additional $450
to $500 a month.
Mayor Paulson asked Mr. Hopman if Evergreen Development would be willing to help
Brooklyn Center establish a senior center. Mr. Hopman explained the residents of the type
of facility he is proposing, generally are unable to participate in the activities of a senior
9/28192 - 9 1
center. He further stated that many seniors in Fargo and Moorhead who use the senior
centers very often come and volunteer at his facilities. 0
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
close the public hearing at 9:39 p.m. The motion passed unanimously,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
RESTING TO GENERAL STANDARDS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
approve for first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Relating to General Standards for Planned Unit Developments. The motion passed
unanimously,
s y,
RESOLUTION 92 -234
Mcmbcr Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO, 92013
SUBMITTED BY EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT GRUUF
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously,
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to 0
approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Zoning IDcsi nation of Certain Land and setting a public hearing d f
g g ri ate ctober o U
g g
P g
26, 1992. The motion passed unanimously,
D I N ITEM
SENIOR CENTER
The City Manager presented for Council's discussion the matter of a senior center. He
stated Council was provided information staff had on file on this subject.
Councilmember Cohen stated the estimated cost of $1,000,000 for an addition to the
Community Center as a senior center is probably not possible in the near future. He asked
if staff has spoken to seniors directly about the type of center they would like to see
Brooklyn Center provide,
Councilmember Pedlar suggested involving seniors in this project.
Councilmember Scott agreed the seniors should be asked what type of center they would
like. She suggested an article be placed in both newspapers asking the seniors to write staff
with their suggestions.
9/28/92 -10-
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosenc
directing the City Manager to come back to the City Council with a proposed program and
method to solicit from the senior citizens of Brooklyn Center their needs and wants.
Councilmember Cohen stated the Council needs to know how it is going to pay for a senior
center. The City Manager stated initially he would come up with an outlinc and if the
Council is interested, staff would put together dollar amounts and suggestions for achieving
this amount.
Councilmember Pedlar stated he is not looking at spending a great deal of money.
Mayor Paulson stated the City needs to look for a partnership that lends itself naturally with
what we are interest in doing (such as a civic center). He. further stated the need to ask the
community what they want in a senior center,
Councilmember Pedlar agreed with the need to look at partnerships.
The motion passed unanimously.
1 % SALES TAX INFORMATION BROCHURE
The City Manager presented a proof of the information brochure which has bean prepared
for the 1% sales tax ballot question,
Councilmember Scott questioned the use of the word "improve" suggesting the word
"remove" be used instead.
Councilmember Rosene also suggested some grammatical changes to the brochure.
Councilmember Pedlar stated he believed the brochure satisfies its purpose.
Mayor Paulson asked if "Residents asked to approve" should be changed to "Residents asked
to vote or approve or disapprove." The City Attorney answered the City Council cannot
advocate for or against this matter,
Councilmember Cohen stated staff should be directed to revise the brochure making it a
neutral document.
Councilmember Rosene asked if these monies could be used for curb and cutter and if so
could this be included in the information brochure. The City Attorney answcrcd the
authority to spend thesc monies is limited to housing projects for low income residents.
If the electorate votes to approve the question, the City Council must then decide what can
be done within the limits of the law,
9/28/92
UPDATE ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The City Manager informed Council the City staff members met with the Earle, Brown
Neighborhood Advisory Committee and their extended committee members on September
17 at the Earle Brown Elementary School. He further stated the City staff will again be
meeting with the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee on October 1 to answer
the questions raised at the September 17th meeting, He, noted if the committee
recommends a feasibility study be conducted the City's survey crews will start doing needed
survey work as soon as possible.
RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
The City N lanugvr pr4scntGd the resolution supporting the development of a community
celebration honoring law enforcement personnel.
Couneilmember Pedlar stated he supports this resolution in concept, however he stated he
opposed the name of the celebration.
RESOLUTION NO, 92 -235
Mumbcr Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the
stipulation that the name "law and order" be reviewed by staff.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A_ NATIONAL
QELEBRATION HONORING LAW ENFORCEMENTPERSONNEL
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave
Kosene, and the motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by C ouncilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmcmhcr Ro,sene
to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City
Council adjourned at 10 :20 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor
Recorded and transcribed by:
Nancy Bcrg
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
9/28/92
-12-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/13/92
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
i
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Appointment of Additional Election Judges for November 3, 1992, General Election
******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk
***************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABMNDATION: -
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
i The General Election will be conducted on November 3, 1992. Since this is a Presidential Election .
year, voter turnout is estimated to be 75 %; therefore, additional election judges are needed for all
eight precincts.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Appoint the attached list of persons to serve as election judges for the November 3, 1992, General
Election.
i
PRECINCT 1
D -Joyce Lindquist
D -Frank Slovak
R -Pat Hotchkiss
PRECINCT 2
D- Marjorie Vickroy
PRECINCT 3
R- Lillian Hetchler
D- Arnold Peters
D -Carol Moler
D- Dorothy Loomis
PRECINCT 5
D- Henrietta Nihart
D -Helen Larson
R- Warren Lindquist
PRECINCT 6
D- Thomas McDonald
PRECINCT 7
D -Joyce Gebhardt
PRECINCT 8
R -Abe Benson
STANDBY
D- Elizabeth Olson
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/13/92
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Initial Application for a Private Kennel License at 6727 Perry Avenue North
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk _.
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: 't 4
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X )
• Chapter 1 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances requires the licensing of all private kennels, .
defined as any premise zoned or used for R1 and R2 purposes, as defined in the Brooklyn Center
City Ordinances, on which three or more dogs or four or more cats six months old or older, are
kept or harbored as pets and not for selling, boarding, showing, treating, grooming or other
commercial purposes. Section 1- 105.5b requires the city manager to approve or deny the
application based on the Public Health Sanitarian's report and written comments by the applicant
and any other affected persons, and Section 1- 105.5c outlines the standards for approval.
Section 1- 105.5b reads, "within fourteen (14) days after the notice of the city manager's decision
is mailed to area property owners, the owner or any other affected person then may request a
hearing before the city council to show cause why the city manager's decision should be changed ".
In this case, the city manager has denied the application for private kennel license for Ms. Debra
L. Schlick; consequently, Ms. Schlick has requested a hearing before the city council to show cause
why the decision should be changed.
Following is a calendar of events from receipt of application to request for public hearing:
August 6, 1992
• Received application for private kennel license from Debra L. Schlick, 6727 Perry Avenue
North.
August 11, 1992
• Sent memorandum o Chief of Police t C e J1m Lindsay requesting a records check to verify any
complaints on these dogs. Attached report indicates several dog tag and dog license
violations. Attached memorandum also indicates several barking dog complaints.
• Sent memorandum to Sanitarian Pam Foster requesting an inspection be completed and a
recommendation be submitted. Attached memorandum from Environmental Health
Specialist Susan J. Hibberd indicates approval with the condition added that feces are
removed daily and the yard be fenced within a reasonable amount of time to provide
adequate space for the animals.
August 14, 1992
• Mailed notice of receipt of application for private kennel license to owners of property
within 150 feet of the applicant's property as required by Section 1- 105.5a.
August 21 through August 26, 1992
• Received several written responses from area property owners requesting the private kennel
license not be issued.
September 3, 1992
• City manager sent letter to Ms. Schlick denying application for a private kennel license.
• Mailed notice of denial of application for private kennel license to owners of property within
150 feet of the applicant's property as required by Section 1- 105.5b.
September 22, 1992
• Received request from Ms. Schlick for public hearing before the city council as allowed by
Section 1- 105.5b.
September 24, 1992
• Mailed notice of public hearing to owners of property within 150 feet of the applicant's
• property.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Render a final decision reversing, affirming, or
amending the decision of the city manager to deny a private kennel license application for Debra
L. Schlick at 6727 Perry Avenue North.
• If the City Council chooses to affirm the decision of the city manager to deny a private
kennel license, the Council should allow a maximum of three (3) months to come into
compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on the premises.
• If the City Council chooses to reverse the decision of the city manager to deny a private
kennel license, the Council should be aware that Section 1- 105.5d sets the license period for
one year and until October 1 of the then current calendar year.
APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Date: tA- 9 -
1. Applicant's Name and Telephone Number
(Last, First, Middle) (Telephone Number)
2. Applicant's Ad ss
(Number, Street, City, State, Zip Code )v
3. Addressor Legal Description of Proposed Kennel
, mot" fl'l -2_
4. Attach a sketch or drawing with this application describing the construction
and operation of the proposed kennel, or, if the animals are to be confined
within the family dwelling unit, indicate this on the application.
5. Indicate number of animals to be confined within the proposed kennel,
together with their age breed and sex.
e.4 y
ZR le-
6. PLEASE NOTE: Proof of current rabies vaccination and City dog license for
each animal and the license fee in the amount of $30.00 must accompany this
application.
Signature of Applicant
PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND LICENSE FEE TO: City Clerk, City of
Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430.
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
New License
Renewal License
License Period through
License Fee Received
RABIES VACCINATION CERTIFICATE CANINE
❑ Distemper
NASPHV Form #50 ❑ Hepatitis (CAV - 1)
Print - use ball point pen or type ❑ Adenovirus (CAV - 2)
Owners Name Address ❑ Leptospirosis
PR; �t . "e. Y FiV M1 Telephone ❑ Paraintkuenza
❑ Parvovirus
N0. , Street I city —) I to Zip ❑ Coronavirus
Sex
r W= _l G C 1 ❑ Canine Rabies
Species: Sex Age: Size: Predomint
Dog{ Male E] 3 mo. to 12 mo. ❑ Under 20 Ibs. na Breed: M
Cat ❑ Female 12 ma or , Over 20-50 so
� Over 50 bs. �
Name
It � � FELINE
❑ Panleukopenia
❑ Rhinotracheitis
Producer ❑ Calicivirus
(First 3letters) s Y�y� yL ``� ❑ Chlamydia
Vacc. Serial (lot) No. ❑ Feline Leukemia
For Licensing Agency Use DATE VACCINATED: ❑ Feline Rabies
License No. Year Veterinarian's # ❑
_ i y f„ n No y1 y� r
19` Monet 19 3 C yam/
19 Rabies Tag No. natu e BASS ' V; P F10PR L o
Other _
Charge ❑ Add ❑ V CINAT XPfftES: q ` T ' !'
8119 BASS (.,t;iCE ROR D
11
Control No. D ZD ¢° tar ^y V 01 55423
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY — TELEPHONE 561 - 5440
HENNEPIN COUNTY N2 3468
DOG LICENSE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT 's t I Ck PHONE NUMBER
ADDRESS t° V V' �(�°�'�� jQ HA IN
S REGISTERS THE CITY OFFICE,
7 A DOG NAMED ��c�.r�c l� COLOR BREED C
HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRE , 19
RABIE CERTIFICATE NO. & DA
DVM.
$5.00 M
❑ ale $3.00 ❑Neutered Male
S5.00 ❑Female $3.00 payed Female BY DATE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
�. 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY — TELEPHONE 561 - 5440
HENNEPIN COUNTY
j DOG LICENSE N— C
3469
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT PHONE NUMBER IN
ADDRESS r HAS REGISTERED IN THE CITY OFFICE,
A DOG NAMED ��Y )QV COLOR BREEDQ�
HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRE
RABIES- ERTIFICATE NO. & DAT a
DVM. Q st) 5
1 - )� $5.00 ❑Male $3.00 Neutered Male
S5.00 ❑ BY Female $3.00 OSpayed Female - aW DATE
RABIES VACCINATION CERTIFICATE ❑ Distemper ` `-
NASPHV Form #50 ❑ Hepatitis (CAV-1)
Print - use ball point pen or type ❑ Leptospirosis
Owner§ Name R Address ❑ Para influenza
PRIN ; La First M.I. Telephone_ ❑ Parvovirus
f 1 C r Q G ❑ Coronavirus
No. Street it State dip 2 � Xanine Rabies
PCrr U cam" ❑
Species: Sex: Age: Size: Predo nant Breed: C -�
Dog Male 3 mo. to 12 mo. 11 Under 201135• ❑ (� b1 K FELINE
Cat ❑ Female ❑ 12 moor older 20-50 lbs. ❑_ La, Q
El Over 50 Ibs Panleukopen a
❑ Rhinotracheitis
❑ Calicivirus
Producer
�� lI�t' p L .1 L� l l \ � 1 'a� f � ❑ CNamydia ,
❑ 1 yr. Lic. /Vacs. [2 Feline Leukemia
(First 3 letters) ❑ 3 yr. LicdVacc• Cher Vacs. Serial (lot) No.
- ❑ Feline Rabies
❑
For Licensing Agency Use 1 ,DATeVAC Veterinarian'sr�
License
License No. Year t 4 ` o
Month 19_` . 19_ l aabie's Ta No. _�1 8119 BASS LAKE ROAD
Other �/ --
Charge ❑ Add ❑ VAtCINAT N XPIRES: HEW HOPE, W11 55428
Control NO. Month Day
wo
RABIES VACCINATION CERTIFICATE CANINE
NASPyV Form #50 D Distempe
Print- use ball point pen or type I ❑ Hepatitis (CAV -1)
Owner's Name 8 Address
PRIN ast
D Adenovirus (CAV -2)
' •L
' ' ,C First D Leptospirosis
NO ' eat M.I. Telephone 0 Paraintluenza
O Coronavirus
City D Parvovirus
E' �L� State r Zr
' Species: Sex: s�
Dog � Male Age: Size: 12 anine Rabies
Cat ❑ 3 mo. to 12 ml Predomina Breed: ❑
Female E) 12 mo, r older 20- 50Ib
o D Under 201bs ❑ �JPr : _�_
s. / / Cx�_
Name t I u Over $0 lbs. ❑ U --��
- FELINE
❑ PanleukoPenia
Producer D Rhinotracheitis
(First 3 letters) Lic. /Vacs. �_ 4 '") D Calicivirus
3 yr. Lic./Vacc. Other �r D Chlamydia
For Licensing Agency Use Vacs. Serial (lot) No. D Feline Leukemia
Year
License No. DATE VACCIN TED: C3 Feline Rabies
Veterinarian's ' -
19 — Month D
— —19— Rabies Tag No. — ure „,.
Other
_______ ----�— ” DE�<'}i�.'(17,'�� O
Charge ❑ Add D V INATI N m n
Control No. EXPIRES: $ 1 WT + lrr'Itt n
Month .19 a ,
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY — TELEPHONE 561 - 5440 ".
HENNEPIN COUNTY N2 3467
DOG LICENSE nnr
THIS IS TO CERTIFY TH T �- �Q- ' k 1 � LK PHONE NUMBER - llh) ` ,1 A 9 ADDRESS
HAS REGISTER D IN THE CITY OFFICE,
A DOG NAMED COLOR 0 50V A BREED U E' v
HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE �EXPIRES--I_ 1g�)
RABIES CERTIFICAT NO. & DA (X Z5 �� q a
DVM. I
$5.00 ❑Male $3.00 f[`�Neutered Male
$5.00 ❑Female $3.00 IDS BY DATE r t�
(]Spayed Female
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police
FROM: Sharon Knutson Administration Secret D
ary/ eputy City Clerk
DATE: August 11, 1992
SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application for 6727 Perry Ave. N.
On August 6, 1992, I received an application for a private kennel license from
Debra L. Schlick, 6727 Perry Avenue North, to keep three dogs.
According to City Manager Jerry Splinter, a records check must be completed
to verify any complaints on these dogs. Please check your records for
complaints and send the report to me by August 18, 1992. Thank you for your
cooperation.
INQUIRY Level: 1 N A M E I N Q U I R Y 08/13/92 0929
SCHLICK, DEBRA LEE
- L-------- --- ------ - - - - -- PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ---------------------------
No S R Har Eye Hgt Wgt DOB DL # SS# SID# FBI#
1 F W U HAZ 5 1 120 020654 2890183292
6727 PERRY BROOKLYN CEN MN 560 -9549
---------------------- - - - - -- ARREST ---------------------------
No Local No County No Case Number Charge Level
ARRESTED ON CR -92 -9583 BOOKING DATA NOT ENTERED
----------------------------
CASES ---------------------------
No Case No Inv Date Code Description Status
2 CR003469 RO 071792 9 9830 DOG LICENS OTHER
3 CR003468 RO 071692
9 9830 DOG LICENS NO FURTHER ACTION
Page: 1 of 4
I!
L:f
A - K
C 1
C O C oar IQ i �1G.r� .... ...
_...
......... ......
INQUIRY Level: 1 N A M E I N Q U I R Y 08/13/92 0930
SCHLICK, DEBRA LEE
---------------------- - - - - -- CASES ---------------------------
No Case No Inv Date Code Description Status
1 CR003467 RO 071692 9 9830 DOG LICENS NO FURTHER ACTION
2 CR929976 SU 071292 9 9806 DOG TAGS AID & ASSIST
3 CR929684 SU 070792 9 9806 DOG TAGS AID & ASSIST
4 CR929583 AR 070592 9 9806 DOG TAGS CLEARED BY ARREST
5 CR909103 CO 060790 J 2500 TRAFFIC- GM -DRI J25 CLEARED BY ARREST
6 CR901312 CI 012590 9 9882 RULES REGS OTHER
Page: 2 of 4
INQUIRY Level: 1 N A M E I N Q U I R Y 08/13/92 0930
SCHLICK, DEBRA LEE
---------------------- - - - - -- CASES ---------------------------
No Case No Inv Date Code Description Status
1 CR8915601 CI 090289 9 9806 DOG TAGS OTHER
2 CR88114548 MR 082588 L 7371 CSC 4 -FRC OR C L73 CLEARED BY ARREST
3 CR884082 CI 031188 9 9170 JUNK CAR VIOL OTHER
4 CR8711276 DR 062587 9 9424 2MV PI OTHER
5 CR8615638 MR 092086 X 3120 CRIM AGNST ADM X31 CLEARED BY ARREST
6 CR86978 CO 011786 X 3120 CRIM AGNST ADM X31 CLEARED BY ARREST
Page: 3 of 4
INQUIRY Level: 1 N A M E I N Q U I R Y 08/13/92 0930
SCHLICK, DEBRA LEE
---------------------- - - - - -- CASES ---------------------------
No Case No Inv Date Code Description Status
1 CR8517231 CO 110385 A 5351 ASLT 5- INFLICT A53 CLEARED BY ARREST
2 CR856745 CO 050885 T 4059 THEFT -$250 LES T40 ACTIVE
3 CR856024 CO 042385 9 9806 DOG TAGS OTHER
---------------------- - - - - -- ADDRESSES ---------------------------
No Type Address Street Apt City St Zip
4 RES 6727 PERRY BC MN
Inv: RO01 Case: CR003469 Date: 071792 Phone:
Page: 4 of 4
I
cjpKLYN CEHTF
9
BROOKLYN CENTER
POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharon Knutson
FROM: Chief Jim Lindsay
DATE: August 21, 1992
SUBJECT: Dog Calls
The department has had a total of 11 calls for barking dogs disturbing at 6727
Perry in 1991 and 1992. Three calls were received in 1991 and eight in 1992.
Of the eight calls, four occurred over the weekend of July 4th and resulted in Mrs.
Schlick receiving a court notice to appear on July 20. She appeared and pled not
guilty and set up a pretrial date .of September 14, 1992. Since that time, we have
received four additional calls. In all cases, the officer or code enforcement officer
responding did hear all dogs barking.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Pam Foster, Sanitarian
FROM: Sharon Knutson,, Administration Secretary/Deputy Cit Clerk
Y
DATE: August 11, 1992
SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application for 6727 Perry Ave. N.
On August 6, 1992, I received an application for a private kennel license from
Debra L. Schlick, 6727 Perry Avenue North, to keep three dogs.
According to City Manager Jerry Splinter, an inspection by the public health
sanitarian must be completed and a recommendation must be submitted to him.
Please schedule an inspection of this property and submit your recommendation
to me by August 18, 1992. Thank you for your cooperation.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 17, 1992
TO: Mr. Gerald Splinter, city Manager -
FROM: Susan J. Hibberd, Environmental Health Specialist
RE: Private Kennel Application; 6727 Perry Ave. N.
On August 12, 1992 and on August 14, 1992 I visited the
property of L. Schlick to conduct to public health
inspection of the property for a private kennel license.
At the time of the first visit a young boy (approximately 10
years old) was home. According to the boy, Ms. Schlick, his
mother, was at work. I explained the purpose of my visit,
gave him a business card and asked him to have his mother
contact me to schedule an appointment for the inspection.
Mr. Schlick has not called.
Today I visited the property again. No one was home.
During both visits, 2 of the 3 large dogs tied in the
backyard barked most of the time.
On both occasions, there was an open bag of garbage in front
of the garage. They are not using containers and I am not
sure they have garbage service. Orders were issued today
for correction.
Because I have not inspected the property or interviewed Ms.
Schlick, and because of the garbage problem I cannot
recommend approval at this time.
ko
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 10, 1992
TO: Mr. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Susan J. Hibberd, R.S., Environmental Health
Specialist
RE: Kennel Application at 6727 Perry Ave. N.
On September 8, 1992, I re- visited 6727 Perry Ave. N. for
the purpose of conducting a kennel inspection. The
homeowner, Debra L. Schlick, scheduled an appointment.
At the time of the inspection all 3 dogs were chained in the
back yard. They are a Doberman /Rottweiller mix, a Laborador
Retriever mix, and a Cocker cross. Each has their own
doghouse. The doghouse for the Doberman /Rottweiller
appeared to be undersized and a larger doghouse which would
allow the animal to comfortably stand and turn around should
be provided.
The dogs were quiet during my visit on September 8, 1992.
All three animals are vaccinated and licensed and either
spayed or neutered.
Weekly garbage service is now being provided by Waste
.Management; pick -up is on Thursdays. Feces are removed from
the yard every other day. Considering the size of the
animals, I recommend daily removal.. The yard was clean on
September 8, 1992.
The animal's food is kept in the garage. I recommended a
rodent -proof container with a tight fitting lid.
When asked about the pets care, the owner stated that they
are fed once in the morning, watered twice each day and
receive veterinary care as needed. The Doberman /Rottweiller
mix was being observed for a leg injury on September 8,
1992, and the owners had not decided yet if the animal..would
require veterinary care.
Orders were issued for the removal of an open container of
used motor oil alongside the garage.
I would recommend approval of the kennel application on the
condition that the above recommendations be met,_that the
orders be complied with, and that the yard be fenced within
a reasonable amount of time, to provide adequate space for
the animals.
ko
CIT
OF Y 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE: 569 -3300
C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
August 14, 1992 911
Ms. Debra L. Schlick
6727 Perry Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Dear Ms. Schlick:
Your application for a private kennel license, license fee, and proof of current rabies
vaccination and City dog license for each animal have been received by the City of Brooklyn
Center.
Please be advised that the enclosed notice has been mailed to area property owners within
150 feet of your home. The city manager will consider your application for a private kennel
license and either approve or deny it based on the public health sanitarian's report and any
written comments from you or affected persons. You will be notified of the city manager's
decision.
Should you have any questions relevant to your private kennel license application, please
call me at 569 -3306.
Sincerely,
j
Sharon Knutson
Administration Secretary/Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
enc.
cc: City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
r!' �cn
August 14, 1992
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION
FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please take notice that the city clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center is in receipt
of an application for private kennel license to keep three dogs.
APPLICANT: DEBRA L. SCHLICK
6727 PERRY AVENUE NORTH
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
City Ordinance Section 1- 105.5a requires the city clerk to mail notice of the
license application to the owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed
kennel location.
Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this notice, the city manager will
approve or deny the license application based on the public health sanitarian's
report and WRITTEN comments by the applicant or any affected person.
Direct written comments to City Clerk, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle
Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430. All information provided
in the written comments becomes public information; however, if you wish to
remain anonymous, you may do so and the city manager will take that into
consideration. Notice of approval or denial will be mailed to owners of property
within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location.
Questions or concerns regarding the private kennel license application should be
directed to Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 569 -3306.
PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 150' OF
6727 PERRY AVENUE NORTH
Anthony and Helen Ornat Dwain and Cynthia Klink Todd Phipps
4909 - 68th Avenue North 6736 Quail Avenue North 6730 Quail Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Mary Dahlin Dennis Koskela Rodney and Donna Anderson
6724 Quail Avenue North 6718 Quail Avenue North 6712 Quail Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Daniel and Pamela Lewis John and Susan Zananko Leah Korn
6706 Quail Avenue North 6745 Perry Avenue North Ren Stangel
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 6739 Perry Avenue North
0 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Gregory Litzau Angelo Lazarakes Richard Judge
6733 Perry Avenue North 6721 Perry Avenue North Dorothy Judge
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 651 - 47th Avenue North
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Resident/Tenant Marshall and Judy Rood Jeannette Heise
6715 Perry Avenue North 6709 Perry Avenue North 6742 Perry Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Daniel and Debra Anderson Kristin Caselius Gary H. Market, Trustee
6736 Perry Avenue North 6724 Perry Avenue North 1317 Fawn Ridge Road
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Concord, NC 28025
Resident/Tenant Regan and Pom Swedeen Gary Glass
6718 Perry Avenue North 6712 Perry Avenue North 6706 Perry Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
4ECEI VED AUG 2 1 1992
QQ� lat wr Ks
S?t�s��w \ \
--
P ig
—, \ a,
- t�.►:� �, �.� tit __ ��.�: �� �_— r :.,a;.� �av -�_�a �a�
- :\ - ae�C:� �cg3 :rts`�' �-�m � ��_�� -�,�, • - - --
�[6EIVE0 AUC 2 4 M2
f
•
� c��� cry -��z llCt�C�r�jac, i99�
1.�,�n�mcP �C�c�i,�.�.e. - '"z,{.u:.c. �/.�2u r✓*�ra /..,�i6Cl<.[
= e �itt�u �-
a � 4 c�mwt
��k yeti C'���c✓/rvn Ez`C��tkCl.�`
J
l y�au
- - - --- ---------- -
U
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
BROOKLYN
TELEPHONE: 569 -3300
C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
September 3, 1992 911
Ms. Debra L. Schlick
6727 Perry Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Dear Ms. Schlick:
I have received your application for a kennel license dated August 6, 1992. In
accordance with Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, notices of the license application
were mailed to property owners within 150 feet of the proposed kennel. I have also
instructed the public health sanitarian to review the application, and I have now
received her report which indicates she was unable to gain access to make an
inspection of the site.
After considering the report from the sanitarian and public comments received, please
be informed that I am denying your request for a private kennel license to house three
or more dogs on your residential premises. You will be allowed until November 6,
1992, to come into compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two
dogs on your premises.
I find that. the issuance of this license would have an adverse affect on the health,
safety, welfare, or property values of persons residing, living, or owning property
within the immediate area. I base this finding on a review of the _ public health
sanitarian's report, information from the police department regarding barking dogs,
and written public comments received.
�
I � Q�
Ms. Debra L. Schlick -2- September 3 1992
p ,
You should also be aware there are other City Ordinances which require Brooklyn
Center residents to control barking and other nuisances generated by the keeping of
pets, such as dogs, on their property. We expect all citizens will be in compliance
with these requirements. Dog owners are particularly responsible for barking of their
dogs and causing a nuisance to their neighbors. In other i
g e situations where dogs have
had a ro ensit to bark some owner h
P P Y s have chosen to use special collars which inhibit
and discourage dogs from barking. You may wish to consider this type of equipment
as it does appear that a "barking dog problem" exists at your residence. If violations
occur in the future, you could be subject to enforcement action.
Under Brooklyn Center Citv Ordinances, the City Manager's decision in these matters
is appealable to the City Council To institute this appeal process, ,you must submit
to my office, within 14 days of receipt of this notice a written request for a hearing
before the City Council Should you choose the appeal option the City Council will
hold a public hearing on , our appeal after mailed notice to adjoining_ property owners
Should you have an questions with regard to this matter, lea
Y q g , please do not hesitate to give
me a call at 569 -3300.
Sincerely,
Gerald G. Splinter
City Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
GGS:sk
cc: Sharon Knutson
September 3, 1992
NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION
FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please take notice that the city manager of the City of Brooklyn Center has denied an
application for private kennel license for Debra L. Schlick, 6727 Perry Avenue North. The
city manager based his decision on the public health sanitarian's report and written
comments received by affected persons.
City Ordinance Section 1- 105.5b requires the city clerk to mail notice of the city manager's
decision to approve or deny the applicant's private kennel license application to the owners
of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location.
The owner or any other affected person may request a hearing before the city council to
show cause why the decision should be changed. A WRITTEN request for the hearing must
be received by the city manager within fourteen (14) days of the date of this notice. Direct
written requests to City Clerk, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
55430.
If a written request for a public hearing before the city council is received, notice of the date
and time of the public hearing will be mailed to owners of property within 150 feet of the
proposed kennel location. Following the public hearing, the city council shall render a final
decision reversing, affirming, or amending the decision of the city manager.
Questions or concerns regarding the private kennel license application denial should be
directed to Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 569 -3306.
i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
s of
:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE: 569 -3300
CENTER FAX: 569 -3494
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
September 24, 1992
911
Ms. Debra L. Schlick
6727 Perry Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Dear Ms. Schlick:
Enclosed is a copy of the public hearing notice being mailed to area property owners within
150 feet of your property. As stated in the notice, the public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, October 13, 1992, at approximately 7:30 p.m.
You are not required to be present at the public hearing, but you may wish to attend so you
can answer any questions the council may have.
Should you have any questions relevant to the public hearing, please call me at 569 -3306.
Sincerely,
Sharon Knutson
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
enc.
cc: City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
7 9 11 lzlo
i
September 24, 1992
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, October 13, 1992
Council Chambers
City Hall
7:30 p.m.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please take notice that the city manager of the City of Brooklyn Center has
received a written request for a public hearing before the City Council to show
cause why the city manager's decision to deny the private kennel license for
Debra L. Schlick, 6727 Perry Avenue North, should be changed.
The City Council will make its decision based on the public health sanitarian's
report, written comments by the applicant and any affected persons, and anyone
wishing to address the Council at the public hearing.
Attendance is not required; however, if you would like to express your concerns
or comments directly to the City Council, you are encouraged to attend.
Following the public hearing, the City Council shall render a final decision
reversing, affirming, or amending the city manager's decision.
Questions or concerns regarding the public hearing should be directed.to Deputy
City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 569 -3306.
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/13/92
Agenda Item Numbe -
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 -120 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES,
PROHIBITING PARKING ON CITY STREETS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 2 A.M. AND 6 A.M.
DEPT. APPROVAL
Sy Knap , Director of Public Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION.
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /at hed
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No
As a part of the budgetary process to develop the 1993 budget for the Police
Department, a Department Strategies Committee was created. The Committee looked
at ways to cut costs, raise funds and also improve efficiency. The suggestion
was made to amend the City's parking ordinance to prohibit parking on City
streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. This change is consistent with
the current ordinances in adjoining communities.
The current ordinance states that a vehicle cannot be parking for longer than 4
hours during the night hours. This requires the officer to first chalk the
vehicles and then return to see if the vehicle is still there and then write the
citation. Often, if the officer is tied up he is unable to return and tag the
vehicle. Under the proposed change, the officer could immediately cite the
vehicle if it is parked during the restricted hours. The Committee also believed
the change would benefit the City's street department during the winter months as
they usually begin plowing between those times and there should be no cars in the
street and if they are we could have them removed. Under the current ordinance,
individuals can park on the street for less than four hours and they could be in
the way of the City plows.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AT THE 9,114192 MEETING
At its 9/14/92 meeting the City Council discussed the above described ordinance
changes as proposed by staff. Following discussion, the Council approved that
ordinance for first reading. In addition, the Council requested staff to submit
i
a report regarding other possible changes relating to concerns which City Council
members expressed during the course of their discussion, i.e.:
■ the issue of "selective enforcement ", and
■ the question of daytime parking limits
RE: "SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT"
On the issue of "selective enforcement ", the question was asked whether, under
extenuating circumstances such as driveway resurfacing, citizens can be excused
from the ordinance. When informed that special arrangements can be made by
calling the Police Department, a member of the Council stated that if the City is
going to make exceptions, those exceptions should be listed in the ordinance.
Discussion Staff agrees that it would be better to have the ordinance
include a provision which authorizes exceptions and describes a process to
be followed by persons requesting exceptions and guidelines to be following
by staff in approving or disapproving such requests. Staff's major concern
is that it just isn't possible to fully anticipate all events which such
exceptions would apply to. Unless some discretion is left to
administration, it is almost certain that the Council would periodically
receive requests to change the ordinance for some specific reason which is
not included in the ordinance.
Stating this is a different way - if the only exceptions which are to be
• granted are those specifically covered in the ordinance, the
administration's job becomes easy, i.e. - simply deny any request not
specifically allowed in the ordinance. However, the City Council would
frequently be requested to deal with those issues.
So as to provide what we believe is a workable solution to this issue,
staff suggests the inclusion of the following addition to Section 1 of the
ordinance as originally proposed: (See optional form of ordinance
attached.)
4. The Chief of Police or his/her designee may allow short -term
exceptions to the above stated parking restrictions under certain
circumstances if requests for such exceptions are submitted to the
Police Department at least two hours prior to the time period for
which the exception is requested, and if he /she determines that the
granting of such exceptions will not create problems affecting the
health and safety of the citizens or unduly affect traffic movements
or street maintenance operations.
Specific examples of events for which exceptions may be granted if
all conditions are met include but are not limited to: a.) family
gatherings for special events such as weddings, graduations,
anniversaries, and funerals in residential areas. b.) civic events
such as community celebrations and parades. c.) reconstruction or
resurfacing of driveways. d.) out of state visitors with large R.V.'s.
REGARDING DAYTIME PARKING RESTRICTIONS
As noted, the current ordinance provides that no person shall park on any
roadway... for more than 6 consecutive hours at any time when the night -time
restrictions are not in force.
Staff believes this provision has served the City very well for man
y y many y ears
• because it encourages people to park on their driveways, in their parking lots,
etc. instead of using the streets as their parking place.
The reason the 6 -hour limit works well is directly related to the fact that most
people work 8 -hour shifts. Therefore, if they bring their cars to work, they'll
park them in the parking lot; and if they leave their cars at home while they go
to work, they'll park the cars in the garage or driveway, or parking lot (at
multi - family residential complexes).
With an 8 -hour work shift, most people will spend 9 to 10 hours from the time
the y leave ve home to the time the y return. Initial consideration of this fact
might indicate that the same results could be obtained by extending the daytime
limit to 8 hours. However, the reason it's necessary to retain a 6 -hour limit
lies in the logistics of enforcement; i.e. - enforcement requires an officer to
first chalk the vehicle, then return at least 6 hours later to see if the vehicle
is still there and if so, to then write a citation. On a practical basis, the
officer cannot be there at the exact time someone parks a vehicle, and usually
cannot be there exactly 6 hours later. Rather, it's necessary to build in some
enforcement time at both ends of the specified limit to allow effective
enforcement. Past experience demonstrates that the 6 -hour restriction is just
barely hort enough y g to allow effective enforcement on vehicles which may be
parked as long as 9 hours.
Staff believes that if the ordinance is changed to anything longer than 6 hours,
many people who are not now doing so would start parking their cars on the
• streets during daytimes. The most serious problems would arise very quickly at
the following locations:
1. at many apartment buildings and other multi - family complexes
2. at some commercial /industrial establishments
3. at a number of locations near MTC's bus routes - where some bus
patrons would park in front of private residences while they ride the
buses to /from work (i.e. - a "casual park- and - ride" solution for the
bus patron).
This practice continues to be reported by residents along bus routes
on a fairly frequent basis, and the 6 -hour limit provides an
effective method of controlling it.
4. in single-family areas of the City where lots a
g y y re small, the family
owns 3 or more cars, or rents rooms to tenants, etc.
Finally, and most importantly, the reasons for adopting and enforcing an
ordinance which minimizes on- street parking throughout the City include the
following:
■ To increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which maintenance
operations can be completed. These operations include snow removal and ice
control, re
nt street sweeping, street repairs, etc. When cars are parked on the
street during any of these operations, the areas around the cars must be
"skipped ", and maintenance crews must return to those areas (sometimes
repeatedly) to attempt to complete the operation. Until and unless they
do, the resident is left with a mess - often as a result of the fact that
it was a neighbor who parked in front of their house. In summary,
. additional parked cars dramatically reduce the effectiveness, and
substantially increase the costs of maintenance operations.
• To reduce damage and stress to streets and boulevards caused by the parking
process (turning of wheels, braking, etc.) and by the parked cars (dripping
of soils, antifreeze, etc.). This is especially true on residential
streets which have a low structural capacity and which don't have curb and
gutter.
• Pedestrian safety is adversely affected by parked cars - especially when
several cars are parked close together.
• Traffic capacity and safety are generally reduced by on- street parking,
especially when vehicles park close to intersections or driveways.
• Excessive on- street parking in residential areas impacts the aesthetics of
the neighborhood, and eventually reduces property values.
• It makes it easier for officers to spot vehicles that don't belong in an
area such as stolen vehicles and vehicles belonging to burglers.
• Allows a clear corridor for operating radar for both enforcement and
traffic surveys.
• Greatly reduces moving vehicle /parked car accidents in residential areas.
• In addition to the on- street parking restrictions, Brooklyn Center has
historically and consistently enforced its subdivision regulations, zoning
ordinance provisions, and building codes to assure that all properties provide
sufficient off - street parking. We believe the results of these policies and
efforts are evident when comparing areas in Brooklyn Center to "comparable" areas
in Minneapolis - where heavy on- street parking is allowed because property owners
have not been required to provide off - street parking.
Staff believes the existing 6 -hour daytime parking limit can be effectively
enforced on a city -wide basis, with a minimum of problems, and without any costs
for signage. We also believe that increasing that limit will result in multiple
problems, dramatically reduced ability to enforce those rules, and the need to
spend a good deal of time and money in dealing with specific problems as they
arise (i.e. - developing studies and analyses of reported problems),
installation of signs (would be needed in some of the problem areas), and
enforcement. Again, a comparison of areas in Brooklyn Center to comparable areas
in Minneapolis will show that a dependence on on- street parking results in a need
for many signs and extensive enforcement efforts.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
• Review
• Discuss
■ If the Council wishes to adopt the proposed ordinance as originally
prepared and presented by staff, it may do so.
• If the Council wishes to add the suggested paragraph which relates to the
granting of exceptions to the parking restrictions, it should do so by
adopting a motion to add that paragraph before adopting "the proposed
ordinance as amended ".
(Note: In our discussion with the City Attorney, he has advised that this
would be a minor change which can be made at the time of the second reading
of the ordinance.
■ If the Council wishes to also consider changes to the 6 -hour daytime
restrictions, it is recommended that this be done independently, by
directing staff to prepare another ordinance for consideration at another
time. (Note: In our discussion with the City Attorney he has advised that
this would be a significant change from the ordinance which was first read
and published).
i
•
nn \
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
day of , 1992 at p .m. at the
City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to
Chapter 27 regarding prohibiting parking on city streets between
the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 -120 OF THE BROOKLYN
CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, PROHIBITING PARKING ON CITY
STREETS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 2 A.M. AND 6 A.M.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 27 -120 of the City Ordinances of the
City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 27 -120. PARKING RESTRICTED AND PROHIBITED.
1. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit such
vehicle to stand upon the roadway of any highway or street in
the City of Brooklyn Center [for more than four consecutive
hours] between the hours of [12 midnight] 2 a.m. and [8] 6
a.m., nor for more than six consecutive hours at any other
time. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit
such vehicle to stand upon any alley in the City of Brooklyn
Center at any time.
2. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit such
vehicle to stand upon any street, highway, parking lot or
other area within the City of Brooklyn Center in violation of
posted traffic control devices.
3. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit such
vehicles or any part thereof, to stand upon a public sidewalk
or upon the nonroadway area of any public street right of way.
4. The Chief of Police or his /her designee may allow short -term
exceptions to the above stated parking restrictions under
certain circumstances if requests for such exceptions are
submitted to the Police Department at least two hours prior to
the time period for which the exception is requested, and if
he /she determines that the granting of such exceptions will
. not create problems affecting the health and safety of the
citizens or unduly affect traffic movements or street
maintenance operations.
Specific examples of events for which exceptions may be
granted if all conditions are met include but are not limited
to: a.) family gatherings for special events such as
weddings, g graduations, anniversaries, and funerals in
residental areas.
b. civic events such
as community
celebrations and parades. c.) reconstruction or resurfacing
of driveways. d.) out of state vistors with large R.V.'s.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after
adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1992.
Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new
matter.)
�00-'
i
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
13th day of October , 1992 at 7:15 p.m. at the
City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to
Chapter 27 regarding prohibiting parking on city streets between
the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 -120 OF THE BROOKLYN
CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, PROHIBITING PARKING ON CITY
STREETS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 2 A.M. AND 6 A.M.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 27 -120 of the City Ordinances of the
City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 27 -120. PARKING RESTRICTED AND PROHIBITED.
1. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit such
vehicle to stand upon the roadway of any highway or street in
the City of Brooklyn Center [ for more than four consecutive
hours] between the hours of [ 12 midnight] 2 a.m. and [ 8 ] 6
a.m., nor for more than six consecutive hours at any other
time. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit
such vehicle to stand upon any alley in the City of Brooklyn
Center at any time.
2. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit such
vehicle to stand upon any street, highway, parking lot or
other area within the City of Brooklyn Center in violation of
posted traffic control devices.'
3. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit such
vehicles or any part thereof, to stand upon a public sidewalk
or upon the nonroadway area of any public street right of way.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after
adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1992.
Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new
matter.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/ /9
Agenda Item Number �o u
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
40
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to
Side Yard Setbacks in Commercial and Industrial Districts
DEPT. APPROVA
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 )
The City Council on September 14, 1992 had a first reading on this
ordinance amendment after review and discussion of this matter and
the Planning Commission's August 27, 1992 recommendation to
approve. The effect of this amendment is to allow a side yard
setback of less than 10 but not less than 3 from one side lot
line in commercial and industrial zoning districts in the City.
The other side yard must have a minimum of a 10' setback and the
exterior wall of the building located less than 10' from the side
yard must conform in all respects to the requirements of the State
Building Code.
Attached for the City Council's review is a copy of the September
14, 1992 Request for Council Consideration, an excerpt of the
Planning Commission minutes of August 27, 1992 relating to their
recommendation to approve this ordinance amendment and various
illustrations showing building relationships with various side yard
setbacks.
This ordinance was published in the City's official newspaper on
September 23, 1992 and is scheduled for a public hearing on October
13, 1992.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council, following public hearing,
adopt this Zoning Ordinance amendment as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 9/14/
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Discussion Item - An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding Side Yard Setbacks in Commercial and
Industrial Zoning Districts
DEPT. APPROV L:
! sue•• -�.,V
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
Y �
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x )
Last May the City Council discussed a proposal by Mr. Jack
Schubert, owner of the 50's Grill, 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard, to
expand the kitchen area of his restaurant. The expansion would
result in an encroachment on the 10' side yard setback required for
buildings located in commercial and industrial zoning districts of
the City.
Dean Nyquist, who represents Mr. Schubert, had suggested, among
other things, that the City consider amending its Zoning Ordinance
to establish less restrictive variance standards that might allow
Schubert to successfully pursue a variance from the setback
requirements.
There was no real support for altering the variance standards,
however, the Council did see some merit in modifying the side yard
setbacks as a means of addressing Mr. Schubert's problem as well as
any other similar situation. It was noted that the current
ordinance allows a waiver of the side yard setback requirement
where buildings are attached to each other at a common property
line. A setback of less than 10' might, therefore, be appropriate
provided fire safety, building code and aesthetic concerns were
addressed. This Council discussion took place during the same
Council meeting at which the consulting firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow
and Uban (DSU) was named to undertake the Brooklyn Boulevard
Planning Study. It was suggested that comments regarding possible
changes to side yard setbacks be offered early during the study.
Summary Explanation
Page 2
September 14, 1992
The staff has had discussions with the Planning Consultant
regarding potential setback changes along Brooklyn Boulevard. Tim
Griffin of the consulting firm has advised that the City not alter
the current 50' along Brooklyn Boulevard, at least at this time.
He believes it is important to keep the option of a large setback
open at least until the study is completed. Side yard setback
requirements were not considered as critical and Mr. Griffin has no
major concerns about altering them. He has suggested that we may
wish to take a more conservative approach to an ordinance amendment
at this time, rather than to abandon the side yard setback
requirement altogether.
The Planning Commission, at its August 27, 1992 meeting, discussed
this matter in detail. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes
relating to their discussion and recommendation is attached. The
Commission wishes to continue to encourage a 10' side yard setback
in the commercial and industrial zones, but proposes to expand the
waiver to not only allow buildings to be attached at a property
line, but to be located less than 10 but no less than 3' from the
property line. Where a building is proposed to be less than 10'
from a side yard, the Commission recommends that it must meet all
applicable building and fire code requirements; must be in
compliance with all other setback requirements; and have at least
a 10' side yard setback on the other side yard.
This proposal has been reviewed by the Fire Chief who has no
problem with the change provided it is clear that all building code
requirements and fire separations must be adhered to where
buildings are located closer than 10' to the property line.
Attached is an ordinance amendment which reflects the Planning
Commission's recommendation for a change. It should be noted, that
with such an amendment, the 50's Grill or any other building in a
commercial and industrial zoning district could have a side yard
setback of less than 10' on at least one side.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider and discuss the
Planning Commission's ordinance amendment regarding side yard
setbacks in commercial and industrial zoning district. The
amendment is offered in a form that the Council could have a first
reading and the proposal could then be published and set on for a
public hearing at an upcoming Council meeting.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
day of , 1992, at p.m. at the
City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to
the zoning ordinance relating to side yard setbacks in commercial
and industrial districts.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of
Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 -400. TABLE OF MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.
Every use of land within the City of Brooklyn Center shall
conform to the following minimum requirements which are
applicable to the Land Use District in which such use is
contemplated.
(Note: Refer to applicable footnotes)
3. d. Interior side yard setback requirements may be
waived in commercial and industrial districts where
abutting commercial and industrial property owners
wish to abut along a common wall built along the
property line. In other cases commercial or
industrial buildings nay be set back less than ten
(10) feet but not less than three (3) feet from
not more than one of the established side lot
lines, provided: (1) All other yard setback
requirements are met: (2) The remaining minimum
ten (10) foot interior side yard between the
building and the lot line shall not be used for
any accessory building: (3) The exterior wall of
the building facing the interior side yard of less
than ten (10) feet shall conform in all respects
with the requirements of the State Building Code
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after
adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1992.
Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be
deleted.)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Commercial and Industrial Sideyard Setback
The Secretary then introduced a discussion item of the commercial
and industrial sideyard setbacks. He explained to the Commission
that the 50's Grill on Brooklyn Boulevard wanted to expand its
kitchen area to the south side of the building. He stated that
this proposal was considered by the City Council as a discussion
item in May or June of this year and that the Council directed that
the matter of sideyard setbacks be considered during the Brooklyn
Boulevard study. He stated that the planning consultant recommends
keeping the 50' front setback at this time, but that the sideyard
setbacks could be varied. The Secretary noted that the present
ordinance allows for buildings to be attached, but that if they are
not attached they must be at least 10' from a side interior
property line.
The Secretary suggested to the Commission that it consider an
ordinance to allow waiver of the 10' setback requirement to either
attach at the property line or to allow something less than 10'
provided that the requirements of the building code are met and
provided that there is at least 10' on the other side of the
building. The Secretary reviewed transparencies showing optional
setbacks for buildings. The Secretary noted that a 5' setback
8 -27 -92 4
would allow for openings, but that if the setback is less than 5
no openings in the wall could be allowed. He stated that another
concern is whether the areas that would be left between the
buildings would be maintainable. He recommended that some setback
requirement be retained of at least 3' if buildings are not
attached and that building code requirements must be met.
Chairperson Bernards asked whether these lesser setbacks would make
buildings unsafe. The Secretary stated that he had talked with the
fire chief about the matter and that he does not see the proposal
as a problem. He noted that most buildings are fire sprinklered
and that the fire chief noted that they have the same problem
fighting a fire in an enclosed space at Brookdale. He stated that
the fire chief indicated that he would not send a fire fighter
between two buildings if the buildings were on fire whether the
setback was 10' or 3 The Secretary stated that the fire chief
was not concerned if the buildings were attached as long as they
were sprinklered. In a response to a question from Commissioner
Holmes about allowing a zero lot line setback, the Secretary stated
that a zero setback could be allowed if buildings were attached,
but that this should not be allowed for one building by itself. He
compared the ordinance provision he was suggesting for commercial
setbacks to a provision allowing a lesser setback in residential
areas. Commissioner Holmes asked if there is a restriction now on
fences. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that
the City recomm 1�
y nds keeping fences at least 6 inside a property.
He added that there are fencing and screening requirements between
commercial and residential properties. He stated that reducing the
setback requirement would not reduce the buffer requirements. He
added that Tim Griffin, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, the
consultant on the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, has recommended that
there be a break every so often so that the City does not have
three or four blocks of attached buildings. Commissioner Mann
stated that she was comfortable with the 3' setback as long as
there was no openings. In response to a question from Commissioner
Holmes, the Secretary explained that a solid wall would be required
if the setback was less than 5
Commissioner Johnson brought up the example of the Amoco Station
and the Quie Viet Restaurant on Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary
noted that there is an arm of residential land between these two
properties and that this land would have to be rezoned and
replatted in order for the buildings to come closer together.
Commissioner Johnson asked whether the City desired some buildings
to be as close as 3 The Secretary answered that he believed it
is an aesthetic judgment. He stated that a 10' setback would still
have to be maintained on the other side of the building. He added
that Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban recommnend keeping the 50' front
yard setback since that requirement will allow for some uniformity
of urban design along Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairperson Bernards
concluded that the recommendation to reduce the setback would not
be giving a license to build at 3 but that the 10' setback would
8 -27 -92
5
still be the basic setback. He asked if a 3' or a 5' setback would
only be allowed in certain circumstances. The Secretary responded
in the affirmative. He stated that a waiver could be allowed
similar to what is acknowledged in the ordinance at present for a
zero lot line setback. ack . Commis '
loner Johnson
asked why t should uld be
called a waiver and why it should not be simply made an ordinance.
The Secretary answered that the provision would be similar to the
provision allowing a lesser setback for one and two family
dwellings provided certain conditions are met. Commissioner Holmes
asked how a waiver would be obtained. The Secretary answered that
it would be similar to the waiver granted tonight to Omni Tool
regarding the separation of driveways. He stated that a Planning
Commission and Council review would be required if a site and
building plan application was involved.
MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING
A 3' SIDEYARD SETBACK WITH A 10' SETBACK ON THE OTHER SIDE IN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Kalligher to
direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment allowing a 3 '
sideyard setback provided that a 10' setback was maintained on the
other side and provided that Building Code requirements are met.
While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Johnson asked
whether the restrictions on windows and doors are in the Building
Code. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner
Kalligher asked how this would affect the 50's Grill. The
Secretary answered that they could proceed with a site and building
plan application at their own risk with the understanding that no
building permit could be issued until after the ordinance had
become effective.
Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Bernards,
Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
b. Educational Uses in the C1 Zoning District
The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to a draft
ordinance prepared for this evening's meeting to allow educational
uses by special use permit in the C1 and C1A zones and to provide
for parking requirements for schools and colleges. e Planner
revi es. T
g ewed the parking formulas in the Draft Ordinance r nance stating they
came from Brooklyn Park's ordinance and also from the City's past
experience with the high school and .Earle Brown School. He added
that he had discussed parking with the Director of Facilities of
the Community College System and that it was recommended that
parking be provided on the basis of 2/3 to 3/4 of a space for each
"teaching station" in the building.. He stated that this would
allow for differences between types of classrooms, rather than
sticking with one basic square footage formula.
Chairperson Bernards asked whether some of the schools in the City
8 -27 -92 6 (t-7
10' SIDE YARD SETBACKS
1 t o o l -
W
tA
Ip to SG ibr tU' to to
�3 G
o O
ZERO LOT LINE
I t uo� loo T
� II I t✓1
✓1 � M
I �
_ v I
goo' %UO
0
VARIED SIDE YARD SETBACKS
Q 10 E3 I to I
•n :n
VARIED SIDE YARD SETBACKS
loo
o •
1,
Ib
87 X 71 1 or (Or
. �
JI
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date I0/I3l92
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
DISCUSSION ITEM - EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO
DEVELOP A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below/ ched
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
On October 1 the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee (EBNAC) met again
with the extended group of citizens from the southeast neighborhood. Following
discussion of the information presented by City staff and discussions with
citizens who attended this meeting and previous meetings, EBNAC voted to
recommend that staff proceed with the development of a feasibility study covering
potential improvements in the area between 53rd and 55th Avenues, between the
Centerbrook Golf Course and Interstate Highway I94. That total area includes
approximately 6 miles of residential streets. In all discussions with the
Committee, we have noted that if street improvements are considered for
implementation in 1993, that initial program should be limited to approximately 2
miles.
By recommending that the feasibility study cover an area which includes 6 miles
of streets, the Committee indicated their desire to study the information
assembled in the feasibility study before selecting specific streets to be
considered in the first year's program. However, the Committee did also
recommend that the initial stages of an improvement program not include streets
abutting property owners who were recently assessed for alley improvements.
Based on this action EBNAC, and Resolution No. 92 -208 adopted by the City
Council on August 24, 1992, staff has taken the following steps:
■ A letter was sent to all property owners in the area which will be covered
by the feasibility study (see attached copy of letter dated 10/2/92).
• Engineering staff members have started conducting surveys of the streets
and properties in the study area.
• A proposal has been requested and received from Braun Intertec to conduct
needed pavement corings and project -level pavement design analyses.
Note Braun Intertec is the only firm in the State of Minnesota to offer
the type of geotechnical analysis which City Engineer Maloney believes is
most appropriate for this purpose, i.e. - non - destructive pavement- strength
testing at 100' intervals, and pavement coring (sampling) every block. The
non - destructive testing (strength measurements derived from the application
of weight and the measurement of deflections) is necessary to determine, on
a project -level basis, whether or not the existing pavement can serve as a
base for the new driving surface. With the results of this testing, we can
design the appropriate bituminous overlay, or anticipate total
reconstruction of the pavement if needed. In addition, the results of this
testing will be utilized in the City's Pavement Management Program, which
has recently been initiated.
Use of these non - destructive testing procedures is substantially less
costly than using the more conventional methods offered by other firms. We
believe that their proposal to conduct this work at a cost of $6,202 is
fair and reasonable.
• Proposals have also been received from 3 firms for the needed television
inspection of all sewers within the study area. We recommend acceptance of
the lowest cost proposal, submitted by Solidification, Inc. in the amount
of $4,991.75.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution accepting the proposals submitted by Braun Engineering and by
Solidification, Inc. is provided for consideration by the City Council.
Il,
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 92 -208 adopted on August 24,
1992, the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee has recommended that a
feasibility study be developed regarding possible utility and street
improvements in the southeasterly portion of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has obtained a proposal from Braun
Intertec to conduct pavement corings and project -level pavement design
analyses relating to such program at a cost of $6,202 and he has advised the
Council that said firm is the only local firm which offers these specific
services, and that their cost proposal is fair and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has obtained the following proposals to
conduct televised inspections of all sewers and in the study area:
Firm Amount
Solidification Inc
$4,991.75
Midwest Underground Inspections, Inc. $5,179.72
Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. $7,936.68
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposal of Braun Interec to conduct the pavement corings
and project -level pavement design analysis at a cost of $6,202
is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to enter into contract with said firm in that amount.
2. All costs for the services rovided b Braun Intertec shall p y it be
charged to Municipal State Aid Account No. 2911.
3. The lowest cost proposal of Solidification, Inc. to conduct
televised inspection of all sewers within the study area at a
cost of $4,991.75 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is
hereby authorized and directed to enter into contract with said
firm in that amount.
4. All costs for the services provided by Solidication, Inc. shall
be charged to the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fu
g 1 Fund for sanitar
y Y ( y
sewer inspections) and to the Storm Drainage Utility Fund (for
storm sewer inspections).
RESOLUTION N0,
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
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
A SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 1, 1992
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee was called
to order by meeting Chairperson Jody Brandvold.
ROLL CALL
Committee members present were meeting Chairperson Jody Brandvold,
Everett Lindh, Dolores Hastings and June Scofield. Chairperson
Jody Brandvold noted Committee members Pamela Frantum and Doug
Rossi had other commitments this evening and would be absent from
the meeting. She also noted Committee member Bob Torres was ill
this evening and would not be present.
Chairperson Brandvold also introduced Councilmember Phil Cohen,
liaison to the Earle Brown Committee.
Staff members present included City Manager Gerald Splinter,
Director of Public Works Sy Knapp and Assistant EDA Coordinator Tom
Bublitz.
10 -01 -92 -1-
CONSIDERATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT
Chairperson Brandvold explained the charge of the Earle Brown
Committee from the City Council which included meeting with
neighborhood groups to conduct informational meetings to consider
an improvement program for streets in the southeast neighborhood.
Consideration of a feasibility study for the project would be one
of the items specifically considered by the Committee this evening.
The City Manager reviewed the materials sent out to persons
attending the meeting, including the questions from the audience
posed at the last meeting with responses prepared by staff. He
pointed out that, depending on if and when the project is
undertaken, information from the feasibility study will be valuable
even if the Committee does not vote to ultimately proceed with the
project.
Committee member Everett Lindh inquired whether areas 6 and 7 on
the map would be the proposed areas to start the project if it was
approved. Areas 6 and 7 include the areas between 53rd and 55th
Avenues on the south and north, and Russell and Humboldt on the
west and east. The Director of Public Works reviewed the map and
noted that each area represents approximately one mile of street,
and that the entire city -wide program, if approved, would probably
be a twenty (20) year program. He explained there are eighty (80)
miles of local streets within the City, and twenty years would mean
that approximately four (4) miles per year would need to be
10 -01 -92
-2-
completed annually. He explained that for the first year staff is
recommending only two (2) miles be under
( ) taken to assure a good
start to the project. After that, he explained the recommendation
would be for four (4) miles per year.
The Director of Public Works continued to review the map and
explained the staff has some concerns about storm drainage problems
in the area between 55th and 57th Avenues. The City is now
reviewing this area and that for 1993 the area should be avoided
since the City does not know what kind of drainage problems exist
and what improvements are needed in the area. He explained staff
is recommending the area between 55th and 53rd (blocks 6 through
11) for the feasibility study. He added he believes it is best to
leave options open for a specific two mile area in this series of
blocks, except for any areas the Committee may want to avoid for
1993.
Chairperson Brandvold inquired as to how specific streets will be
selected for the project. The Director of Public Works explained
the feasibility study would give engineering information on the
condition of streets, sewer, water, storm sewer, etc. After the
feasibility study is completed, a specific area could then be
selected.
Committee member June Scofield inquired whether the neighborhood
would be able to reject curb and gutter as part of the project and
10 -01 -92 -3-
do only the other improvements, such as sewer and street, without
the other amenities. The Director of Public Works stated staff
strongly recommends curb and gutter be included in the project,
since curb and gutter results in lower street maintenance costs,
and also from a drainage standpoint, curb and gutter would provide
superior drainage.
Chairperson Brandvold explained she recognized there are people who
have had their alleys paved and are currently paying assessments on
that project. The Director of Public Works stated areas 2 and 9 on
the map were the areas where the alleys were paved at the same time
Y i
P
Committee member Scofield's alley was paved.
Councilmember Cohen noted that curb and gutter is approximately
one -third (1/3) of the cost of entire street project. Also, he
explained the Maxfield Housing Study strongly recommends curb and
gutter. Also, he reminded Committee members of the petition for
curb and gutter made to the City in the 1960s by people in the
northern part of the southeast neighborhood. He emphasized that
g P
the neighborhood should look to the future in terms of appeal of
homes and pointed out that there are now fewer homebuyers than
there are homes, and that the City of Brooklyn Center will be in
competition with other cities for these homebuyers. The project is
not only for people today, but for future residents also.
- -
10 _
Ol 92 4
Councilmember Cohen commented that Mr. Frank Huelskamp, a local
realtor who attended the last meeting of the Committee, noted that
homes are easier to sell with curb and gutter. He pointed out that
an appraiser could inform the residents of the southeast
neighborhood as to whether the investment will increase the
property values.
Councilmember Cohen stated the feasibility study, if approved,
will move forward to provide the necessary information to make
decisions. He added that we will not know what is present in terms
of the condition of the streets and sewers unless the feasibility
study is completed.
Chairperson Brandvold requested the Director of Public Works to
review his slide presentation and the financial information on the
project.
Committee member Everett Lindh pointed out that much of what the
Committee says tonight is conjecture since we do not know what
exists with regard to the condition of the streets and sewers now,
and that the feasibility study will give us the information to make
a decision on whether or not to move forward with the project.
A member of the audience stated that he felt the staff already
knows a great deal of information on the condition of the streets
and sewers that they are not telling us. Councilmember Cohen
10 -01 -92 -5-
stated he took exception to that and asked Sy to review the
problems with regard to streets and s
P g ewers.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the condition of the main
sewer lines noting that in some areas of the City tree roots are
growing in some of the main lines. He also pointed out that there
are problems with the types of materials used in some of the sewer
lines after the war, which included corrugated metal pipes and farm
drain tiles which do not hold up well.
With regard to service lines from the street to the residences in
the area, the project could include the repair to service lines
which would mean that the project would provide for installation of
service lines from the street to property lines.
He continued by explaining that the old records of sewer and water
lines are not very good, and that in some areas we only know the
year built, size and location of the line but do not know what type
of material was used in construction of the sewer lines. The
feasibility study will tell us the condition of our main and give
some clues as to the condition of the service lines to the house,
but he noted that a camera cannot be run through the service line
to the house.
A member of the audience inquired as to how much blacktop would be
installed on residential streets. The Director of Public Works
10 -01 -92
-6-
0 explained the normal residential street is built to accommodate a
five to seven ton load. He added that soil borings would be
necessary to tell us the strength of the subgrade, and that there
could also be strength testing of the existing pavement to provide
information to make a decision as to whether a 2 1/2 3 or even
a 5 layer of blacktop would be needed.
The audience member then inquired whether existing pavement could
be recycled. The Director of Public Works explained that presently
eighty to ninety percent (80 -90 %) of recovered material from the
old streets is crushed and recycled.
The Director of Public Works presented the slides which showed the
condition of existing City streets in Brooklyn Center and also the
results of a street improvement project in the City of Osseo which
contained many neighborhoods similar in appearance to Brooklyn
Center.
Committee member Scofield inquired as to the cost of the
feasibility study. The Director of Public Works explained City
staff can do the survey work for the feasibility study at an
approximate cost of $20,000, which is actually part of the regular
approved budget. He explained this is a cost in terms of staff
time, but it is a cost that is presently budgeted and is not an
additional cost to the City. He pointed out additional costs for
the feasibility study which would include televising sewers at an
10 -01 -92 -7-
estimated cost of $5,000 to $10,000 and a geotechnical analysis
which would cost between $10,000 and $15,000. He pointed out the
cost of televising the sewers would be charged to the public
utilities budget g and the soil borings would be aid from g p Municipal
State Aid highway funds, both of which would result in no increase
in the general fund budget of the City. He explained the entire
feasibility study can be funded without increasing the City's tax
levy. He also pointed out that the feasibility study would be
referred back to the Earle Brown Committee, and they could then
hold meetings for the entire neighborhood or targeted areas.
The Director of Public Works reviewed several overheads describing
the project beginning with the objectives of the project which are
the primary reasons for considering the street improvements. The
two major objectives are: providing the lowest long -term cost to
keep streets in an acceptable condition and provide neighborhood
enhancements which improve property values. He continued his
review of the project describing the feasibility study components,
the preliminary cost estimates and cost distribution for a two mile
program, preliminary estimate of special assessments for street
improvements, special assessment deferral policy, proposed
assessment stabilization program, impact on property taxes and a
tentative calendar of events.
With regard to the tentative calendar of events for the project,
the Director of Public Works explained the City would need to do
10 -01 -92 -
8-
survey work on a feasibility study, if approved, before any
appreciable snowfall accumulates on the ground. He explained it
would take approximately three to four months to assemble the
information, and the Committee could then hold additional meetings
with the neighborhood to consider the feasibility study and whether
or not the project would move forward.
The Committee continued its discussion of the project and there
was a motion by Committee member Everett Lindh and seconded by
Committee member Dolores Hastings to recommend to the City Council
to proceed with a feasibility study for a street improvement
project, recommend that the City hire an independent appraiser to
evaluate the benefits received from a street improvement program,
recommend the City Council formalize the assessment stabilization
program, and recommend areas 6 through 11 on the project map
presented by staff as the areas to be considered for the project.
Chairperson Jody Brandvold indicated that before the Committee
votes on the motion, she would entertain questions and discussion
from those in attendance at the meeting.
Chairperson Brandvold recognized Ernee McArthur, who stated she
thinks Brooklyn Center has taken care of the streets very well, but
compared the condition of the streets to homes that are now in need
of repair due to the age of the homes. She indicated the streets
10 -01 -92 -9-
are now aging just like homes in the neighborhood and she supported
the motion of the Committee.
The Director of Public Works commented that the City has had a
policy of no potholes in the streets, and that the cost of
maintaining streets in such condition is skyrocketing.
Committee member Dolores Hastings stated she had received phone
calls from residents in her neighborhood with questions, one of
which was how long after the assessment can you pay off the
assessment without interest? The Director of Public Works
responded that a 1993 project would be levied in the fall and
homeowners would have thirty (30) days after the levy to pay the
assessment in full.
Committee member Hastings also asked whether curb and gutter could
be put in at some future time. The Director of Public Works stated
that curb and gutter could be installed at a future date after the
streets were improved but at a dramatically increased cost.
Committee member Hastings then brought up the situation where some
driveways slant to the street and inquired whether the City will
fill in the gap between the driveway and the street. The Director
of Public Works explained the City will restore the boulevard or
drive to complete the project.
10 -01 -92 -10-
One member of the audience then questioned the use of an appraiser
on the project. The Director of Public Works explained many
residents request information on how the project will benefit their
property, and that this element of the project will assure people
who have doubts about the value of the project and it is also
important from a legal standpoint since the City must legally prove
benefit to the property from the project.
Committee member Scofield inquired as to the cost of the appraiser
for the project. The Director of Public Works explained that he
has talked to one appraiser who has indicated one approach would be
to take six sample households in a neighborhood and do a before and
after appraisal of these properties. The total cost for this
approach would be between $5,000 and $7,000.
Chairperson Brandvold inquired of the audience whether there were
any more questions or comments on the project before the Committee
voted on the motion.
The Director of Public Works inquired of the Committee members
whether the motion included the entire area from 53rd to 55th, or
would areas be left out, such as the properties that had already
been assessed for alleys.
Committee member Lindh stated that he would like to amend his
motion to include the area between 53rd and 55th only from Lions
10-01-92 -
1 92 11 -
Park to I -94, and to recommend that properties which are now paying
special assessments for recent alley improvements not be included
P Y P
in the early stages of the reconstruction program. Committee
member Hastings, as seconder of the motion, accepted the amendment.
Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the Earle Brown Neighborhood
Housing Advisory Committee voted unanimously to approve the motion.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Brandvold noted that she had received a request from
Ernee McArthur who suggested that the Earle Brown Committee address
the needs in the Northbrook Shopping Center, and assist the
neighborhood in answering some questions with regard to what is
needed in terms of services in that area. She added that a survey
could possibly be done in the area and distributed through existing
shops. She also suggested the Committee could meet with the
realtor representing the Northbrook Shopping Center and discuss
what possibilities might exist for that area. Also, she indicated
that many residents have indicated a special interest in seeing a
grocery store reestablished in that area. She added that she would
like to have this as a discussion item at a future Earle Brown
Committee meeting.
10-01-92 -12-
ADJOURNMENT
The Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing dvisor Committee adjourned
g y � d
at 9:OO p.m.
Chairperson
10 -01 -92 -13-
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
BROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300
CENTER FAX: 569 -3494
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
October 2, 1992 911
TO: All Residents between 53rd and 55th Avenues
between Centerbrook Golf Course and
Interstate Highway 94
Re: Survey Work in Your Neighborhood
Dear Resident:
During the next several weeks you may notice City survey crews working in your neighborhood.
They will be collecting information which will be used to develop a feasibility study for possible
utility and street improvements in your neighborhood. This work has been authorized by the City
Council following preliminary discussions with the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee
and meetings with a number of residents from your neighborhood.
The information being gathered will include locations and elevations of pavements, manholes, yards,
driveways, garages, etc. Also, independent firms hired by the City will be testing the strength of the
existing pavements, and performing televised inspection of sewers. The City will use this information
in the preparation of a feasibility study.
We wish to emphasize that collection of this information and preparation of a feasibility report does
not mean that any project has been or will be approved. Rather, it will provide the information
needed to allow meaningful consideration of an improvement program. Before any decisions are
made, formal public hearings would be held. But more importantly, if serious consideration is given
to such a program in your neighborhood, you will first be invited to attend public
information /discussion meetings. At such meetings, the information assembled during the feasibility
study would be presented and your questions and comments will be welcomed and appreciated. Only
following such meetings would formal hearings be held.
Note While the Advisory Committee recommended that all streets between 53rd and 55th Avenues
will be included in the feasibility study, they also recommend that the initial stages of an improvement
program not include streets abutting property owners who were recently assessed for alley
improvements.
If you have any questions regarding the activities of the City survey crews in your area, please call
the Engineering office at 569 -3340.
Sin erel
G. G. linter
City anager
19H ALLAACXA MY 7
Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -20
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF A
POSSIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the average age of residential streets in the City of
Brooklyn Center is in excess of 30 years, and the Director of Public Works has
advised the City Council that, because of normal deterioration, the annual
costs for maintaining these streets are rising rapidly; and
WHEREAS, development of a comprehensive plan for street improvements
must be based on reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, citizen
participation to assure citizen understanding and support, evaluation of
alternative design concepts, consideration of costs vs. benefits for property
owners and for the City, and an overall feasibility evaluation; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that consideration
should be given to the development of a comprehensive neighborhood street
improvement program for the entire City; and
WHEREAS, the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee was
appointed by the City Council and charged with the responsibility of
reviewing, commenting and making recommendations regarding matters which
relate to the Southeast Neighborhood and said committee has expressed an
interest in considering development of a pilot street improvement program in
the area south of 57th Avenue North and easterly of T.H. 100 for
implementation in 1993 or 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Financial Commission has been appointed
by the City Council and charged with the responsibility of reviewing,
commenting and making recommendations regarding matters which have a
significant financial impact on the City and its citizens.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center that:
1. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to assemble and
develop such information as may be necessary to develop a
reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, financing options,
and feasibility reports for a comprehensive street improvement
program and for possible development of an initial pilot
project.
2. In order to assure maximum opportunity for citizen
participation, staff is authorized and directed to (1) meet with
the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee and extensions
of that committee; (2) meet with other neighborhood groups who
wish to participate, and (3) conduct general public information
meetings within specific areas if the Advisory Committee
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -208
recommends consideration of an improvement program within such
areas.
3. Staff is authorized and directed to meet with the Financial
Commission to discuss development of a long -term plan for a
residential street improvement program and the integration of
such a program into the City's Capital Improvement Program and
financing options and policies.
4. -It is anticipated that it will become necessary to contract for
certain professional services, including but not limited to real
estate appraisals, and televised inspection of sanitary and
storm sewers. Formal consideration of contracts for such
services will be individually considered by the City Council if
they are recommended by an advisory group, and if they are
submitted in compliance with the Policy for Procurement of
Professional Services as adopted by the City Council on August
12, 1991.
5. All costs relating to preliminary development of a residential
street improvement program shall be appropriated from the local
Municipal State Aid Stree fund, Account No. 2911.
August 24, 192
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST: W
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Dave Rosene and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen;
and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said es
p resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10 /I3 /9 LL _
Agenda Item Number 1X 6
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
DISCUSSION ITEM - STAFF REPORT REGARDING DRAINAGE PROBLEM IN THE VICINITY OF 67TH
AVENUE AND PERRY AVENUE
DEPT. APPROV
�J
Sy'krapp, Director of Public Works
x
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below/at&6hed
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
Since completion of I94/694 westerly of Brooklyn Boulevard we have periodically
received reports of flooding in the vicinity of 67th Avenue and Perry Avenue (see
attached map). Inspection of existing conditions has indicated that there is an
area of about 17 acres which drains overland to this location. Under pre -
development conditions, that water drained into wetlands which existed easterly
of Perry Avenue. However, over a period of years the following developments
occurred (not necessarily in this order):
• development of the townhouses between Noble Avenue and Orchard Avenue
• development of industrial areas east of Noble Avenue
• construction of I94/694, including noise walls
Further inspection shows that only a 12 -inch diameter pipe culvert allows the
water from that drainage area to drain into MNDOT's ditch on the highway side of
the noise wall. (Note: We have found no evidence to indicate who installed that
12 -inch culvert... it wasn't included on any MNDOT plans, and no City employee has
any knowledge of it).
During 1992 two claims for damage caused by flooding have been filed against the
City. The City's insurance company did issue payment of $815 in response to one
of those claims.
During the past 18 months we have been working with MNDOT staff to attempt to
address this issue, to develop a solution to it, and to negotiate an agreement
for implementation of that solution. We're happy to report that:
• MNDOT has recognized the problem, and they have recommended that three 24-
inch diameter concrete pipe culverts be installed through the noise wall
(to replace the existing 12 -inch culvert), with concrete aprons, and with
trash guards.
• MNDOT has proposed to install these proposed culverts, (including
reinforcement of the noise wall, ditching, etc.) at a cost to them of about
$15,000 if the City agrees to purchase the necessary culverts, aprons and
trash guards.
•
City Engineer s e
y g Maloney y h requested and received two proposals for
furnishing the culverts, aprons and trash guards. The lowest cost
proposal, as submitted by North Star Concrete is in the total amount of
$3,882.91.
• MNDOT has already completed the cleanout of their downstream ditch from the
location where the culverts will drain into MNDOT's ditch.
Note While this proposed solution provides immediate relief to a specific
flooding problem in the immediate vicinity of this intersection, it should be
noted that this solution still leaves the 17 -acre area with only a culvert outlet
in the MNDOT ditch. The City's Water Management Plan, now being developed will
probably recommend that this area be eventually served by a more complete storm
sewer system. However, it is anticipated that the construction of that complete
system will have a very low priority.
Staff recommends acceptance of MNDOT's proposal noting that, while the City's
cost is significant, MNDOT has provided the engineering analysis and design, and
will assume full responsibility for construction.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1992 -25, INSTALLATION OF
CULVERTS NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 67TH AVENUE AND PERRY AVENUE,
APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFORE
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council
that a serious drainage problem exists in the vicinity of 67th Avenue and
Perry Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council
that an agreement has been negotiated with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation ( MNDOT) wherein MNDOT agrees to design and construct an
improvement to relieve the flooding problems if the City of Brooklyn Center
agrees to provide the culverts, culvert aprons and trash guards needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has obtained the following proposals to
furnish the culverts, culvert aprons and trash guards needed to this
improvement.
Company Amount
North Star Concrete $3,882.91
Elk River Concrete Products $4,133.21
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City of Brooklyn Center hereby accepts the proposal
submitted by MNDOT to resolve this problem.
2. The lowest -cost proposal to furnish the required culverts,
culvert aprons and trash guards, as submitted by North Star
Concrete in the total amount of $3,882.91 is hereby accepted.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to purchase
those materials in accordance with that proposal.
3. This improvement is hereby established and designated as
Improvement Project No. 1992 -25.
4. Funding to cover the City's share of the costs for this
improvement is hereby allocated from the Storm Drainage Utility
Fund. All costs incurred for this improvement shall be charged
to that 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.
70 A VE. N 0-
�- - -- I —� 1 � Y
�
w� o DRAIruoG
■ AVE.
N.
} i ( _ > a'N ' URB ■ N
.11 C Or IAAf PARK f -
111.1
l - — -1 6 T18' 0
r + z I ZI O \` - -- - rER TO
Z ' h—, {� O z
t- �' 1 w I U.S. POST .��\ I N0. /
¢; F—r ¢ w; ACUA
wl CFAE7�Rr
o C� J C 68Tti' t p,.� _`Q•G — ! z ' 24' ! -- - \ \GRIME
. I �`_ 68TH. AVE. N. _ft: _ - • - I rn z
C
� L C
•- w_, r w ` PQ`W( M FREEWAY I'
_ - < L Q a i �O
` rn '
H.
I
-� — -- 67TH. AVE.
-- _ PROPOSED CULVERTS
Tom. T TT T-
T
e �a•
��� 66 AV E_ - N. - 66TH_ AVE. N
66T' v N. � 11 � - - - -- -
F -
_
G7 � f r—
WINC LA. �� -- _ ➢ rn
z
r"
I L
m
AVE- N. �a: ° 65TH
PROJECT 1992 -25 a r
O4
r > d o � n,
i
-- — 64T A N 1 W
`< 64TH AVF mil 1--+ 1 1-- i ° 1 T-3- -a 1 1 _ Q e PARX �p
"-' PARK � $� • � C
CULVERTS AT DR. rn
T FANOR ! R.
.... . . . r . ♦ .sc . .�— r � r - om, Q �P ' Z
C
-67TH AVE /PERRY AVE k—
63.. . - -- - -�'- -' -i12'a - 6 D AVE. N� -- - - _ 63RD. AVE. N.
/EST FI f
SrA Z
-
P�111 DFR IA z - ° r` i z - - - - ✓wm �' I '
• CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/13/92
Agenda Item Numbcr &[L
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
STAFF REPORT REGARDING TREE PLANTING
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below/att,Mhed
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
The 1992 budget includes a total of 14 050 o tree lant' total o
g $ for planting. A t f $3,000
was appropriated for planting in parks; $3,250 for replacement trees on
boulevards; and $7,800 for reforestation. Of the reforestation funds, $3,000 was
earmarked for the Residential Reforestation Program, and $4,800 for matching a
Small Business Administration grant for planting on boulevards.
Park and Boulevard Replacement Planting
Normally, park and boulevard replacement trees are purchased and planted in the
spring. Spring planting allows the City to plant bare root trees, which are less
costly than balled and burlapped (B &B) trees, which can be planted at any time.
This year, staff did not purchase trees in the spring, because this funding had
been identified to be cut if budget reductions were necessary. By the time a
decision was made to keep this funding, the window of opportunity for planting
bare root trees had closed.
Staff subsequently obtained proposals for B &B trees. The lowest cost proposal
was submitted by Minnesota Valley Nursery. Unfortunately, Minnesota Valley,
along with several other area nurseries, was recently quarantined by the
Minnesota Agriculture Department because of the presence of Japanese beetles.
These beetles are very destructive, and damage from them in the Eastern United
States has been very costly. An article from the Star Tribune on the subject is
attached.
• Agriculture Department experts have informed us that we can minimize the risk of
spreading the beetle by planting bare root trees, which are virtually 100 percent
insect free. It is also suggested that we delay purchase of any trees until
Spring, 1993, to allow time for the current infestation to be controlled.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the funding appropriated in 1992 for park
planting and boulevard tree replacement ($6,250 in total) be carried over into
1993, to fund purchase and planting of bare root trees next spring.
Reforestation
The City has received formal notification that it has been awarded a $5,000 grant
from the federal Small Business Administration. This grant will be used for a
boulevard tree planting program, to be funded by a combination of grant, budget,
and property owner funds.
Grant funds will be available for use in Spring, 1993. Staff recommends that
$4,800 of the $7,800 appropriated in 1992 for reforestation be carried over into
1993. Details of the proposed boulevard tree planting program will be presented
to the Council for its consideration and approval later this year.
The 1992 Residential Reforestation Program is nearly complete. Funded $3,000 by
the City and $1,000 by a grant from Global ReLeaf, 76 vouchers worth a maximum of
$50 each were awarded, and $3,649.76 was expended.
r
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve by motion the carry over of funds from 1992 to 1993, for tree planting
and for reforestation. If approved, these items will be included in the annual
year end resolution making such budget adjustments.
>I r f .. *ile that should reassure consum-
Star Tribune F x c ens who buy nursery plants, it doesn't
ry answer questions about how far the
Friday ' bi etle has gone. It probably entered
s l ° the state two years ago on infested
October 2/1992 nursery plants, said Dwight Robin -
sQn, an entomologist with the Agri -
7 ? . t : calture Department.
Area nurseries � ' Tire numbers of beetles that inspeF
t rs are catching in traps are small,
they are sufficient to suggest that
t}�e insects are reproducing and
quarantined for s preading in the area, he said.'
Ore reason to sound alarms now is
Japanese beetles avoid widespread infestation that
c �uld necessitate increased pesticide
I uye in the metro area, Robinson said.
The most common weapon used
By Sharon Schmickle a0inst the adult beetle is the insecti-
Staff Writer crd_e.Sevin, he said. There are biologi-
c 1 controls, but they work only
An exotic - looking beetle that feeds voraciously on golf - course "when the numbers of beetles in-
turf, rosebuds, maple leaves and more has invaded the Twin crease higher than. we ever want to
Cities area in numbers that prompted agriculture officials to hove here, "•he said.
impose quarantines on nurseries Thursday.
w Another reason to pounce on the
The Minnesota Agriculture Department also appealed to home y infiltration is the problem the de-
owners to help hunt down the destructive Japanese beetle. They a stfuctive bugs pose for the sod and ? '
urge people who think they have spotted the beetles to send nursery industries. They attack more
samples to the department in St. Paul. than 300 species of woody and herba-
ceous plants, said Michael Klein, an
The flashy beetles, bright metallic green with copper - colored, P4: a tomologist who works in Ohio for
win covers, have caused billions of dollars' worth of damage in tte U.S. Agriculture Department.
Eas t em states. Minnesota hopes to follow California and Ore '�,h A�td in each plant, they seem to go
gon, which have eradicated them. fqr the things people value; blossoms
a buds on roses, apples on trees
Beetle continued on page 9Ai and leaves on maples, for example.,
Oue estimate put damage at $600
zW : million a year in Eastern states dur-
_ - *}• rt ": in� the early 1980s, Klein said.
tar Tribune r
nday /October 2/1992 9A The insect is especially destructive
f buse it devours plants throughout
s�
it4 life cycle, starting in the fail as a
grftb beneath the soil. There, it pre
ri 4 fers to eat grass roots but also will
chomp into the roots of corn, beans,
.fi r toi�trrratoes and other plants. The grubs
hibernate during the winter and start
feeding again in the spring
"greas such as golf courses can be
reduced to scorched brown waste-
lands," the state Agriculture Depart-
t) Inch 3�4 ment warned
A Inl July or thereabouts, the beetles
v The emerge, ready to eat plants above the
Jap anese � gr¢und. Typically they reduce leaves
y p e► to skeletons and devour flowers and
w, beetle fruits:
The Minnesota Agriculture
Department has asked Twin Arty Japanese beetles are too many to
' Cities residents to help curb an suit the nursery industry because
their mere presence in the state could
s , s� influx of Japanese beetles. "'" curb sales of sod, trees and plants to
Known for their voracious
P
s, appetites, these exotic beetles otl}er states and Canadian provinces
F feed on more than 300 types of that want to remain free of the pests
plants, including grass roots. Ore Minnesota nursery where the
�s Adult Japanese beetles emerge
* d in mid -June to insects were found is Bachman'
from the groun s
early July and are easy to Nursery Wholesale Center in Farm-
?� recognize because of their bright , in$ton.
i' v?
metallic green coloring and
:
copperwing covers. But the "There wasn't a large number of bee-
a larvae, which feed during tle�, but any number is alarming,"
summer and fall, look like marry sai John Daniels, who directs nurs-
other grubs found In the soil, a production for Bachman's.
Star Tribune Graphic/ Ray Grumney T center got rid of the insects by
sp ying a small area of the nursery
i� w re the beetles were found, he
eet'e sai 1. Now it is going beyond state
qu rantine requirements, trying to
c r *iawjk bu . all of its stock in states that are
Continued from page I
free of the beetles,
he 335 Japanese beetles captured in Th other two nurseries where bee-
t e Twin Cities since mid -July were
' fund in Lakeville, Eden Prairie and tle were found were Landscape
v r& Pr ducts Center in Eden Prairie and
S akopee and in park areas of Min- Q
y
K r:� Mi nesota Valle Nurse near
$� , r apolis and St. Paul. Shkopee. Kevin Reitmeier, Lwho
ei rider the quarantine, three nurseries m ages the Minnesota Valley nurs-
n i those areas have been ordered to ery , said infested trees have been
.f +i4 s ray infested areas and plants with spriyed.
i secticides. Other nurseries through-
o t the state will not be allowed to Managers of several nurseries are
►5, r '' a cept soil- bearing plants unless they me ting with state officials today to
are certified to be free of the beetles. dis uss the next steps in safeguarding
z s yt , g , �1 a nst a return of the insects, he
sai
' - .3, ; 4 1 � � i>a•' , ', +Tk! � �,
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Dat 13 92
Agenda Item Number ,��
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Discussion Item - Request by Village Properties, the owners of the
Evergreen Park Manor Apartments, to expand an existing agreement
with the City of Brooklyn Center to ac additional land.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
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! )
In 1985 the Brooklyn Center City Council, under Planning Commission
Application No. 85016, granted Ken Solie and Jerry Cowan of Village
Properties, owners of the Evergreen Park Manor Apartments, a
variance to allow a building setback of less than 50' from the
proposed new right -of -way alignment of T. H. 252 subject to various
conditions and requirements. Solie and Cowan were required to
secure underlying rights to excess right -of -way lying east of their
property to provide for required ordinance setbacks and to enter
into an agreement with the City assuring that they would acquire
the necessary excess right -of -way from MNDOT once it became
available and combine this property through platting or registered
land survey with that of the Evergreen Park Manor apartment
complex. The agreement was to be filed with the title to the
property binding any future owner to this acquisition agreement.
This action and agreement really amounted to a temporary type of
variance because, upon fulfillment of this agreement, there would
be no need for the setback variance granted under the above stated
application.
The reason for the variance request in the first place was that
MNDOT was acquiring a portion of the Evergreen Park Manor
Apartments' property which included a building addressed 7212
Camden which was attached at a fire wall with a building addressed
7206 Camden. Solie and Cowan's plan was to save the 7212 building
and to relocate it on the property thus, not losing any units in
the complex. This building relocation would be within 1' of
property acquired by MNDOT for right -of -way purposes. However,
MNDOT had indicated that all of the property which had to be
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Page 2
October 13, 1992
acquired was not necessary for right-of-way and the eventual final
q Y g Y
right -of -way line would be more than 50' away from the location of
the building. A density variance was also implicit in the action
taken by the City Council under Application No. 85016 because
approximately 38,100 sq. ft. of land was also acquired by MNDOT.
Solie and Cowan met all the conditions of the variance by acquiring
the underlying rights to the property lying to the east and did
enter into an agreement with the City, which they did file with the
title to the property, agreeing to acquire the necessary property
and combine it with the complex once it became available. The City
is currently holding a $8,500 performance bond to assure completion
of the requirements of this agreement once MNDOT makes the land
available.
The amount of land that Solie and Cowan will acquire by this
agreement is approximately 18,700 sq. ft., and when attached to the
remaining 257,228 sq. ft. of land in the complex will amount to a
total of 275,928 sq. ft. Based on the ordinance density
requirements of 3,600 sq. ft. of land per unit for R4 zoned
property, Evergreen Park Manor Apartments would be allowed 76.6
dwelling units. They have 80 units (thus the acknowledged density
• variance of Application No. 85016).
We have received a written proposal from Ken Solie (copy attached)
whereby he proposes to seek the underlying rights to additional
excess MNDOT right -of -way in the area of the Evergreen Park Manor
Apartments. Like the previous agreement, the owners of the complex
would agree to acquire the property and attach it to their property
through platting or registered land survey once it becomes
available.
The purpose of this proposed acquisition is to add additional land
area to meet the density requirements of the ordinance for an 80
unit complex 80 units x 3 3600 s . ft. unit = 288 000 s . ft.
P � � q ) and
( q \
to add additional land area so that they can convert some of their
units to three bedroom apartments. The Zoning Ordinance requires
250 sq. ft. of additional land area for each bedroom in excess of
two in a multiple family dwelling unit. The ordinance also limits
the number of dwelling units having more than two bedrooms to no
more than 100 of the total number of units in a complex. The
Evergreen Park Manor Apartments would like to have 8 three bedroom
apartments in the complex, but to do so they would need a total of
290,000 sq. ft. of land in their complex (288,000 sq. ft. + 2,000
sq. ft.) .
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Page 3
October 13, 1992
Their proposal indicates they will attempt to acquire the rights to
27,800 sq. ft. of excess MNDOT right -of -way, and when it is
available, acquire and attach it through platting or registered
land survey with their property. This would eventually leave them
with approximately 303,728 sq. ft. of land area, which is more than
required by the ordinance.
The basis for this proposal is the logic and agreement which was
developed and approved in the 1985 variance proposal and agreement.
If the Council accepts this logic, either a new agreement should be
executed or the existing agreement amended. In either case the
document would have to be filed with the title to the property to
bind heirs, successors, or assigns to the fulfillment of the
agreement.
Attached for the Council's review are the following:
1. Copy of the City Council minutes of 7 -8 -85 approving
Planning Commission No. 85016 subject to the seven listed
conditions.
2. A map of the area presented at the time of the review of
• Application No. 85016 showing the location of the
property and the existing T. H. 252 right -of -way.
3. A detailed drawing showing the location of the Evergreen
Park Manor Apartment complex and surrounding properties
as they were effected by the highway taking.
4. A copy of the executed 1985 agreement and the
verification of its filing.
5. A copy of Ken Solie's 9 -30 -92 letter requesting the
expansion of the agreement to include additional land.
Recommendation
If, following review and discussion of this proposal, the Council
believes the expansion of the agreement to be consistent with the
logic and findings made in 1985, it should authorize the Mayor and
the City Manager to enter into a revised agreement, in a form and
manner approved by the City Attorney, with the owners of the
Evergreen Park Manor Apartments assuring that they will acquire
excess right -of -way from MNDOT and shall combine the property to
the Evergreen Park Manor Apartment; complex through platting or
registered land survey. This agreement shall be filed with the
title to the property upon its execution.
as Platted within the Hellsted Addition. He explained this ordinance was first
read on June 10, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on June 20, 1985,
and is offered this evening for a second reading. He stated this ordinance provides
for vacation of a platted, but never developed 30' wide street right -of -way, i.e.
Irving Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to its dead'end approximately 490' south
of 69th Avenue North.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Vacating a Portion of Irving Avenue North as Platted within the Hellsted Addition.
He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing.
No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Irving Avenue North as
Platted within the Hellsted Addition. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -12
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF IRVING AVENUE NORTH AS PLATTED WITHIN THE
HELLSTED ADDITION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly
passed and adopted.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:19 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPL ICATION NO. 85016 SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE PROPERTIES FOR A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 35-400 OF TIC ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Manager explained this application would allow temporary 1' setback off
Highway 252 right -of -way and would allow a density variance of two units at the
Evergreen Park Apartments, 7200 -7224 Camden Avenue North. He stated the City
Council tabled the application and continued the public hearing on June 24, 1985•
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the history of this application
including the location of the current buildings, the description of the original
application and the conditions recommended for approval by the Planning Commission
at their June 13, 1985 meeting, information presented at the June 24, 1985 City
Council meeting, and changes affected by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
proposals. He added Planning Commission Application No. 85016 was tabled by the
City Council at their June 24, 1985 meeting. He stated the Planning Commission, at
their June 27, 1985 meeting, expressed concern with a 40' setback from a 6' wall, and
felt it did not meet the intent of City ordinance relating to setbacks. He added the
Planning Commission felt the noise wall should be at least 12' in height for a 40'
setback.
The Housing Coordinator re- entered the Council Chambers at 8:52 p.m.
7 -8 -85 -9-
The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the Minnesota Department of
Transportation does not wish to install a noise wall, but prefers landscaped berms
instead. He added it has been the City's preference in the past to choose berms
rather than the noise walls. He explained that for a temporary variance, the issues
remain the same regardless of what the MN /DOT'S action will be. If a wall is
constructed, a standard setback should be determined.
Councilmember Lhotka asked if it would be possible to proceed with the second
proposal if landscaped berms are constructed, and the Director of Planning &
Inspection stated more land is necessary to construct berms. Councilmember Lhotka
asked if it would be possible to construct a berm on private property and add a fence
to that property. The Director of Planning & Inspection responded this is a
possibility.
The Housing Coordinator left the Council Chambers at 9:07 p.m.
Councilmember Theis inquired as to what would become of the property on the east side
of T.H. 252, and wondered if a noise wall on the west side would make it noisier for
those on the east side of T.H. 252. The City Manager stated a duplex is on the east
side of T.H. 252, and noted a landscaped berm would be constructed on the east side.
Councilmember Scott stated she would prefer a berm over a noise wall any day based on
her experience.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Ken Solie of Village Properties who stated in the two
story buildings, the second story would be noisier. According to Mr. Solie,
Village Properties intends to extend the wings on the east end of the building to
deter the noise. Councilmember Hawes asked if there are any openings on the east
end of the building in question, and Mr. Solie responded there are not.
The Housing Coordinator returned to the City Council Chambers at 9:08 p.m.
Councilmember Theis asked if a landscaped berm and a fence is installed, and half of
the berm is on private property, what the maximum number of units would be before a
variance is needed. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated it would be
necessary to review a plan prior to answering this question. He restated the
concern expressed by the Planning Commission of whether or not the intent of the
ordinance is met for a noise wall for a 40' setback. Councilmember Hawes inquired
as to the setback requirements of the side, rear and front of the 7206 Camden Avenue
North building. The Director of Planning Inspection responded th '
at a
g P 50 setback
is required by ordinance but the City Council can utilize a lesser setback.
Mayor Nyquist continued the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No.
85016. He inquired if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing. '-
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
close the public hearing on Application No. 85016. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Application No. 85016 with authorization for a 12 combination of landscaped
7 -8 -85 -10-
berm and noise wall for a 40' setback, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The variance is justifiable on the basis of a physical hardship
created by the highway taking and the public interest in
preserving real property, and is not justifiable on the basis of
the owner's financial interests alone.
2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the
repurchase rights to any excess right -of -way to the east of the
Evergreen Park Apartments property, prior to the issuance of
permits for relocation of the 7212 building.
3. The applicant shall submit, prior to the issuance of permits for
building relocation, a letter from MN /DOT acknowledging that
there is adequate excess right -of -way and /or potential
mitigating improvements in the future to provide for required
ordinance setbacks.
4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council a site and building plan
application for the property with new building and parking
locations and any other site modifications comprehended, prior
to the issuance of permits for relocation and reconstruction.
5. In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed"
by the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided
and any new construction shall conform to the density limitations
of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant
shall acquire the excess right -of -way immediately to the east of
the apartment complex and maintain the area in a manner
consistent with the proposed site plan and the Housing
Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance.
7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a
manner approved by the City Attorney, assuring that they will
acquire excess right -of -way from the MN /DOT and shall combine
this property to the Evergreen Apartment complex through
platting or registered land survey. Said agreement shall be
filed with the title to the property prior to issuance of permits
for relocation or remodeling.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting
against: Rich Theis. The motion carried.
The Director of Planning & Inspection left the Council Chambers at 9:18 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING ON EST ABLISHMEN OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BOND ON BROOKWOOD
CCNDCMINIUNS - (CONTINUED —
The City Manager stated there is add t' nal information on Brookwood condominiums
to be added to the record.
There was a motion by Councilmem er Lho �a and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
reopen the public hearing on stablishm \ t of a Multifamily Housing Bond on
7 -8 -85 -11-
RON I!
db
Asa
IN
vi
co • •
�..
II I I I
-- - - -=
X01 _ •• 1 i f - -�' --
1 14 =1 lT
r I I � s.eez I ♦ -3-.to
i. I l 1 1 976
, ` clnaleclr
•� .3 ' I T .401
Li 3S I x so•s � �
APT OQ.
•/W • • =04.16
f
�• I
l0 31
•
Y IN t t
•f 1 part lot
23S I I lk
I r _....:
T.H. 52 L , 1L4ITS _ �.c
I
l r J 03.3 ' 101.00 I 1 �"'.' 1 _ p
I T r
DECLARATION
OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS INDENTURE is entered into by and between Village
Properties, a Minnesota partnership, hereinafter called the
"Developer" and the City of Brooklyn Center, a Municipal
Corporation, under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
hereinafter called the "City ".
WHEREAS, Developer owns Evergreen Park Manor Apartments
hereinafter called the "Apartments ", located at 7200 -7224
Camden Avenue North in the City, which is legally described
as: Lot 2, Block 2, Thomas Construction Co. 2nd Addition;
WHEREAS, on July 8, 1985, the City Council granted
Developer a temporary variance to relocate a building on
Apartments property which at the time of relocation will be
in violation of City Zoning Ordinance Section 35 -400, herein-
after called "Section 35- 400 ", which requires a fifty foot
(50') setback from Minnesota Highway 252;
WHEREAS, the Developer has represented to the City
Council that it intends to acquire land which the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "Depart-
ment", intends to convey after completion of the construction
on Highway 252, that will enable Developer to comply with
Section 35 -400;
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the above representations by the
Department, Developer has entered into an "Agreement for
Reconveyance" with the present fee-owners, hereinafter
collectively called "Owners ", of the land underlying the
Department right -of -way easement (Exhibits A -D, incorporated
by reference herein) which if acquired by Developer will
bring the Developer in compliance with Section 35 -400;
WHEREAS, the City has granted the temporary variance in
reliance on the above representations by the Department and
the Agreement between the Developer and the Owners, and
intends to replat the Apartments property upon Developer's
acquisition of the land made available for repurchase by the
Department;
NOW, THEREFORE, Developer hereby declares that all of
the land described above shall be held, sold and conveyed
subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions
which are for the purpose of complying with zoning requirements
of the City and which shall run with the land described
above and which shall be binding on all parties having any
right, title or interest in the land described above or any
part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which
shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof and the
City.
In consideration of these premises, and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby expressly acknowledged by Developer and the
City, the Developer agrees to the following:
1. Performance Guarantee The Developer agrees to
perform fully all the terms of the Agreement with
Owners and /or do what is legally necessary to
obtain fee title to any and all property made
available for repurchase by the Department; provided,
however, that if the Department offers for repurchase
an amount of land insufficient to bring Developer
into compliance with Section 35 -400, Developer
will acquire all such land in accordance with the
terms of this Covenant and upon so acquiring will
not be in violation of this Covenant by reason of
the resulting non - compliance with Section 35 -400.
2. Petition to Replat The Developer hereby petitions
to have the Apartments property replatted upon
Developer's acquisition of the land made available
for repurchase by the Department and Developer
further agrees to sign such plat upon completion.
3. Financial Guarantee The Developer agrees to
furnish the City with a Financial Guarantee in the
form of a cash escrow, a bond issued by an approved
corporate surety licensed to do business in the
State of Minnesota and executed by the Developer
as principal, or other Financial Guarantee as
approved by the City Manager in the amount of
$ 8,500.00 to cover costs incurred by the
City in the event Developer fails to acquire from the
Department all of the land made available for
repurchase. The costs include, but are not limited
to, the cost to the City of acquiring the remaining
property made available for repurchase by the Department
and of replatting the Apartments property to
reflect such acquisition. This Financial Guarantee
shall continue in full force and effect until the
City Council shall have by Resolution approved and
accepted Developer's compliance with the terms of
this Covenant. Upon such acceptance and approval,
the Developer shall be released from any further
liability under the Financial Guarantee or this
Covenant and evidence of such release shall be
filed with the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin
County. This Financial Guarantee shall be conditioned
upon the full and faithful performance of all
elements of this Covenant and upon compliance with
all applicable Statutes and Ordinances of the City
and shall further be subject to the following
provisions which shall be deemed to be incorporated
in such Financial Guarantee and made a part thereof.
a. Notice The City shall not be required to
give any prior notice to the corporate surety
or to the Developer of any default hereunder
before proceeding to enforce the Financial
Guarantee or before the City undertakes any
work for which the City will be reimbursed
through the Financial Guarantee.
b. Performance Bond In the event that the
Financial Guarantee has been submitted in the
form of a Performance Bond, the City may
demand that the Surety deposit with the City
a sum equal to 1500 of the estimated cost
incurred in acquiring the land made available
for repurchase by the Department and replatting
the Apartments property. The balance of the
bond shall be returned to the Surety. This
money shall be deposited with the City within
ten (10) days after written demand therefore
and if the Surety fails to make the required
deposit within ten (10) days, the City shall
have the right to proceed against the Surety
with whatever legal action is required to
obtain the deposit of such sum.
C. Funds on Deposit In the event that the
Financial Guarantee is in the form of cash,
certified check or other arrangement making
the Financial Guarantee immediately accessible
to the City, the City may, after notice to
the Developer, deposit the Financial Guarantee
in its general account. The City may then
proceed to acquire the land necessary to re-
plat the property and reimburse itself for
the costs of so doing, and return the balance
to the Developer.
d. Handling of Funds If the Developer shall
provide a Financial Guarantee in the form of
cash, certified check, certificate of deposit,
bank draft, or other liquid assets, such
money may, while on deposit with the City,
before or after default, be commingled with
other City funds in the City Land Investment
Trust Fund and invested in the same manner as
provided by the City Ordinance without accounting
to the Developer or being liable to the
Developer for any interest earnings thereon.
e. Waiver of Defense A copy of this Restrictive
Covenant shall be attached to the corporate
surety bond, if any, and reference to this
Covenant shall be made in any such bond, but
no corporate surety shall assert as a defense
to the performance hereunder, any lack of
reference in the bond to this Covenant.
4. Enforcement The City shall have the right to enforce
this Covenant in any court of competent jurisdiction.
5. Recording. A copy of this Covenant shall be
filed with the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin
County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City have
executed this Agreement this day of ,rY(_L�cti 1985.
VILLAGE R PERTI '
its at
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
CiE Manager f
n
Mayor / /
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HE N? -��' )
2A ti iSEy
On this q ") day of : S t ?f 1985, before me,
a notary public, within and for said county, personally appeared
�.. A; I' �f . 3r 4d, to me known to be the person
described in and who executed the foregoing Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, a d acknowledged that
he executed the same as ,t_/t._Lt7 ' , i r,
�r , in behalf
of Village Properties, a Minnesota partnership.
cT s
.l CS. �em
aix
KJARY I JWC — MINNESOTA
0 A l A �
RAMSEY COUNTY (X a- 'L'�-/ La,
My commission oxpiresMorch 19, 1991 Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this 3 0 day of 1985, before me,
a notary public, within and for s count p ersonally a
eared
[)CM N. t4ltol T Y P Y
an C� EA A L-O 6.Ve. ,..tTE
to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did
say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of
the City of Brooklyn Center, the municipal corporation named
in the foregoing Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions, and the said j) EAA Pt . N y Q0 t b T and
C1 � R A J.D C-7 , S Q L) wre g acknowledged that they executed
the same as Mayor and City Manager, respectively of the City
of Brooklyn Center for
Y and in its behalf.
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by; L PAUL W. +�-- VLU
TARY PUBLIC - MI NNESOTA
LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, ENNEPIN COUNTY
ommirslon Eapuas CA. 28. 1 881 2
O'Brien & Drawz *. n.er.+.ewo......*...oH
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 333 -0543
HC tots (a -as)
Office of COUNTY RECORDER of Hennepin County, Minn.
Minneapolis, Minn.,..................
'
0 RECEIVED OF.................. ... ........................ ...................................... -- ........................................................................ ..... .............................. __... ._ ....... ......._....... for Record, the
following instruments:
NUMBER KIND OF INST. I FEES
i
I
VI 1I
CHECK # AMOUNT S
RECORDING FEES S
'✓ ' ........ y
By ......_ �1..... .....- ...................
Deputy Cotlnty Recorder
c
VILLAGE PROPERTIES 2500 -39TH AVENUE NE #230
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55421
is
September 30, 1992
Ron Warren
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Ron:
Regarding our discussions about the conversion of two two -
bedroom apartments at Evergreen Park Manor into one three -
bedroom and one one- bedroom apartment, we understand that
zoning ordinances require an extra 250 square feet of land
area for each additional bedroom above two bedrooms per unit
and further that the number of three bedroom units cannot
exceed 10 percent of the total units in the complex.
We propose to convert up to eight sets of units to the three
bedroom /one bedroom format. This would require land area as
follows:
80 units x 3600 sqft /unit 288000 sgft
8 additional bedrooms x 250 sqft /bedroom 2000
Total area required 290000 sgft
As a result of the 1985 partial condemnation of Evergreen
for Highway 252 construction, our present land area is:
Original land area 295328 sgft
Lost to condemnation 38100
Acquired via reconveyance rights 18700
Total 275928 sgft
In 1985, the City Council passed a variance allowing the
land represented by the reconveyance rights to be included
in the land area of the complex and allowing a four percent
shortfall in overall land area. We request an extension of
this variance to allow the three bedroom conversions.
Referring to the attached maps, we acquired the
reconveyance rights to the areas outlined in yellow to meet
the requirements of the original variance and are now in the
process of acquiring the rights to the areas outlined in
green t o provide. land area for the. proposed conversions.
The new land area is as follows:
0
Present land area 275928 sqft
Parcel A 8800
Parcel B 8750
Parcel C 10250
Total 303728 sqft
Granting this proposal is critical to the continued
successful management of Evergreen Park Manor. In Brooklyn
Center's difficult rental market, we need flexibility to
meet the housing needs of the community. While there is an
ample supply of two bedroom units in the area, one bedroom
apartments are in relatively short supply and there are
virtually no three bedroom apartments available. By
allowing the proposed conversions to proceed, we can modify
our unit mix to better match the market in Brooklyn Center.
For the past two years, vacancy rates at Evergreen have
increased from historical levels of three percent to an
average of twelve percent - at times reaching levels near
twenty percent. At these vacancy rates, the property shows
a significant negative cash flow. These escalated rates
have resulted in part from a considerable reduction in the
numbers of potential residents looking for housing in
Brooklyn Center and in part from a need to screen applicants
more carefully. By offering qualified applicants a better
selection of unit types, we anticipate that we can achieve a
dramatic reduction in vacancy rates and return the property
to economic viability. If we cannot reduce our existing
vacancies, we will be unable to continue our ownership.
We have owned this property since 1978 and have never
experienced problems of this magnatude. This critical
situation demands drastic action if the property is to
survive. We are committing $5000.00 per unit to this
conversion plan and ask the City's support by providing us
the opportunity to carry out our plan.
The conversions would add a maximum of eight residents to
the apartment community. Our occupancy limits for each
apartment type are:
1 Bedroom 3 Residents
2 Bedrooms 4 Residents
3 Bedrooms 6 Residents
Please arrange for a Council review of our proposal as soon
as possible.
Thank u,
Kenneth Solie
W
2.S Br
I - --11 --
GAR AGE
I
II apt ° i 2 � I
� I I
�\ I E
.
J
♦ e _
/ f 01 ` 8612
L N.B. P.1.240+6
16 16' 29.00" LT
I R 4583.662
GAR I L 13
B. R. E. I T 655.5.401 401
�j� �� O; ' � i X 884308.924
Y 261536.825
80.10 I
o I I
shed
2•APBR B� {
I I, ,,G * ♦ `12 .9 ` 113.13
PAR 3'
art of
S `��
uSE
part o - to 1 1 I n 1 G ° , 1 t 31
33 37
341 20' �," or of lot
GAR 71-
` {
71�9 N ::J�
1 s F 1' - 35 36 3 h A
r
Sp 72,111
I�
` 2
235 ` I
'Bit �/ f
1 i
I PI ►- 1 I m m
252
a os I 95.1 � : =,�;.F �� ---- -- - --- _ -_._ - - - - --
' 1 0l0 60' i 176J 103.3
t- ` IJ3.3 . - � t-- I `- - 101.00
T �
^
8 I 9
7118 122,
1 S F Di TD — 7208 7212 7218 �2SF i 2 d � I.S.F n 7224 19 c1. 20 7200 - 2 S•R ;
D 1 % S F :�.
2 80 .04 95.1 .J.
----- I Z Q' n F !_ -103.3
7 103. 4. 00
z 2 81.6 81.61
n I - 81.67 81.61
� r
N
I E�
Lj
i t
�o 64 .70
co
U �-
• e 90 90
I • 1) '� •• • ( I tw '
.dam
I K
2 s 6r.
Apt
( l
I I l * :•
\\ ( GARAGE �. i �•: .� '• � t't\ ✓•
L I • seiz
• \ �1 j ( ( L N. 71C!29. 7.80
D 1 ° •tT I j � r••.'.'`
I R ~583.662 ( 1 • 1 1'OLIC
GAR I
E L I 01 ?7e ~ ` - ClitsRCN
��:
•' i x 84308.92 I
35 Y 201536.825
1
i 2 5•ER �n / / Yi C.r& � •s
I tM1 O y ■1•� �_ t
0 6 B.IP F,
APT.. B, Q,`. r , . !O•.T8 n
,4.9e f �.. I • /1G, n�
• is i : C . -+- 5
10 31
• L L � J
.I i. Past , for
`1
l
N I
A J/ tt
~ • n S . � � `' -' X751 i 1
235
cv
m i C 705.e7
.- - _^ � • toy r
al _ --- •---- — . T.H.
- 52 LcnrT. L 1T5 _ �t! Lc c
U
U O I C. i • V 5 • 1 —
I ` 03.3
C
U L � , I i0l a I (
Z J
9 3 ( ( TE, `. NL
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date October 13, 1992
Agenda Item Number 11 L
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
DISCUSSION ITEM: 1993 BUDGET FOR NORTH METRO CONVENTION AND TOURISM
BUREAU
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Patricia A. e, Deputy City Clerk -
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMfUENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SAY EXPLANATION: ( supplemental sheets attached )
As required by the contract between the City of Brooklyn Center and the North Metro Convention
and Tourism Bureau, the 1993 budget for the Tourism Bureau has been submitted for your review.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
I recommend acceptance of the 1993 budget for the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau.
3. CHARGES Basic services provided pursuant to paragraph 2 of this
Agreement shall be without charge to the person or organization utilizing such
services unless authorized by contractual agreement or action of the board of
directors.
4. BUDGET The Bureau shall submit its annual budget for review by the
City Council on or before the lst day of October of the year preceding the
effective date of the budget. Such budget shall detail with specificity the
uses to which monies received shall be spent to provide the services described
in paragraph 2 of this Agreement.
It is understood between the parties that the actual revenues being
generated under paragraph 5 may vary from the amounts anticipated in the
budget. For this reason it is agreed that the budget may be modified without
prior consent of the City Council, providing that any adjustments shall be
made by a two thirds (2/3) vote of the board of directors.
Notwithstanding any other language to the contrary the Bureau shall not
expend any sums beyond its revenues.
5. FUNDING On the 15th day of each month, the City shall remit to the
Bureau, for funding of the Bureau, 95% of the lodging tax payments received by
the City, less refunds, in the preceding month during the term of this
Agreement.
6. VERIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES The Bureau will provide the City a
copy of the Bureau's monthly financial statements, showing monthly, year -to-
date, and budget figures, properly itemized and verified by the director of
the Bureau. The Finance Officer of the City shall have the right of access to
the books and records of the Bureau at any time during normal business hours
to audit any item of revenue or expenditure.
7. HOLD HARMLESS Any and all employees of the Bureau or any other
persons, while engaged in the performance of any service required by the
Bureau under this Agreement, shall not be considered employees of the City,
and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers Compensation
Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or other persons
while so engaged, and any and all claims made by the third party as a
consequence of any act or omission on the part of the Bureau, or its agents or
employees or other persons while so engaged in any of the services provided to
be rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or the responsibility of
the City. In connection therewith, the Bureau hereby agrees to indemnify,
save and hold harmless, and defend the City and all of their officers, agents
and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes of actions
of whatever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the execution
or the performance of the services provided for in this Agreement.
8. MULTIPLE CITY PARTICIPATION It is contemplated that the Bureau in
addition to providing services to the City of Brooklyn Center will also
provide the services described in paragraph 2 of this Agreement to the Cities
of Brooklyn Park, Fridley and any other city duly entering into this agreement
and that all Cities may be jointly promoted as a unitary convention and
visitors bureau. Therefore, it is specifically authorized that funding for
such joint promotion will be financed pursuant to this Agreement.
-2-
I�I TRO
September 29, 1992
i
a
i
i
I Mr. Jerry Splinter, Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Mr. Splinter:
In accordance with our contract with the city of Brooklyn Center, I am submitting
the 1993 operating budget for review by the City Council. No action is required.
Growth for the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau has been steady for
it's first five years of operation. In 1993 we intend to continue our marketing
strategies to bring vistors to the area and are looking forward to a successful year.
I
I would be glad to answer any questions regarding the enclosed budget.
Sincerely,
Julie Doth
Executive Director
t
t
JD/wh
i
1
6155 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 120
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
612/566 -7722 800/541 -4364
FAX 612/569 -6320
TDD 612/566 -6526
Serving the Communities of:
Fridley, Brooklyn Center,
Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove
Members
MACVB /IACVB
August 28, 1992
NORTH HETRO CONVENTION AND TOURISH BUREAU
1992 ADJUSTED BUDGET
AND
1993 BUDGET
REVENUE 1992 ADJUSTED 1993
Lodging Tax $425,000.00 $445,000.00
Joint Venture Grant 20,949.00 29 778.00
Interest 1,500.00 1,200.00
TOTAL REVENUE $447,449.00 $475,978.00
EXPENSES 1992 ADJUSTED 1993
Administration $154,385.00 $190,150.00
Marketing 254,767.00 241,726.00
Sales & Promotion 9,700.00 12,200.00
Memberships 7,726.00 8,165.00
Public Relations 16,000.00 19,580.00
TOTAL EXPENSES $442,578.00 $471,821.00
(DETAILED LINE ITEMS FOLLOW)
1992 • 92 Adjusted 1993
I. ADMINISTRATION Budget _Budget Budget
501 Salaries - gross $116,000.00 $100,250.00 $129,000.00
503 Payroll taxes 8,500.00 7,800.00 10,000.00
5014 Unemployment taxes 400.00 550.00 700.00
510 Rent 12,500.00 13,000.00 13,650.00
513 Office Equipment 7,590.00 3,800.00 2,500.00
Maintenance Agreements 0 0 1,000.00
515 Office Supplies 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,700.00
517 Telephone 3,500.00 4,000.00 4,000.00
520 Postage 6,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00
523 Auto mileage /parking 3,000.00 3,200.00 3,500.00
525 Printing /stationery 1,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00
527 Temporary help 1,000.00 1,200.00 1,200.00
530 Insurance - workers comp 1,500.00 1,500.00 2,000.00
532 Insurance -0 &D liability 2,375.00 2,375.00 2,500.00
535 Insurance - general liability 1,500.00 810.00 1,000.00
537 Audit /tax preparation 2,000.00 3,000.00 3,200.00
538 Professional /acct fees 1,500.00 2,900.00 3,200.00
Continuing Education 0 0 3,000.00
540 Miscellaneous 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $171,365.00 $154,385.00 $190,150.00
II. MARKETING
548 Meeting planner 1,000.00 500.00 1,000.00
549 Visitor guide 0 3,417.00 0
550 Rate,brochure 10,000.00 5,200.00 6,000.00
551 Reference materials 300.00 150.00 400.00
552 Group advertising 44,000.00 38,000.00 35,960.00
553 Tourism advertising 95 000
g .00 133,000.00 135,566.00
554 Promotional items 2,000.00 500.00 1,000.00
555 Special promotions 26,500.00 31,000.00 14,800.00
556 Direct mail 0 500.00 0
557 Agency fees 0 0 6,000.00
558 Contingency 500.00 500.00 1,000.00
559 National Sports Center 35,000.00 22,000.00 20.000.00
Festival 0 20,000.00 20,000.00
TOTAL MARKETING $214,449.00 $254,767.00 $241,726.00
1992 '92 Adjusted 1993
III. SALES /PROMOTION Budget Budget Budget
560 Reimbursable group exp 0 0 0
565 Airfare $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00
566 Hotel - travel 4,000.00 2,400.00 2,000.00
567 Meals - travel 1,500.00 500.00 1,000.00
568 Entertainment - travel 1,000.00 100.00 200.00
569 Meals - local 1,000.00 600.00 1,500.00
570 Entertainment - local 1,000.00 600.00 1,000.00
572 Car rental 1 100.00 500.00
573 Shows /blitzes 3,400.00 3,900.00 4,000.00
574 Travel advance 0 0 0
TOTAL. SALES /PROMOTION $14,650.00 $ 9,700.00 $12,200.00
IV. MEMBERSHIP
581 Metro Assoc CVB 6,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00
582 Minn. Assoc CVB 200.00 200.00 215.00
583 MSAE Dues & Meetings 200.00 200.00 200.00
584 North Henn. Chamber 200.00 221.00 230.00
585 Brooklyn Ctr. Chamber 200.00 360.00 360.00
586 Fridley Chamber 185.00 185.00 200.00
587 HSMA Meetings 0 0 0
588 HSMA Dues 125.00 125.00 125.00
589 MPI Dues 210.00 235.00 235.00
590 MPI Meetings 0 0 0
591 IACVB Dues 975.00 0 0
592 IACVB Meetings 0 0 0
593 MN Festival Assoc. 100.00 100.00 100.00
594 RCMA 100.00 100.00 100.00
Misr: 0 0 400.00
TOTAL MEMBERSHIP $8,495.00 $7,726.00 $8,165.00
V. PUBLIC RELATIONS
597 Public Relations 15,000.00 8 11,580.00
598 Local Promotions 8 8,000.00 8,000.00
TOTAL PUBLIC RELATIONS $23,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 19,580.00
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 10-13 -9
Agenda Item Number C
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Discussion Item - Update on Brooklyn Boulevard Study
DEPT. APPROVAL:
�;�' "'—� l - / —
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGERS REVIEW RE
/ COMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x )
The City Council has requested an update on the Brooklyn Boulevard
• Study being conducted by the consulting firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow,
and Uban (DSU).
The City Council on May 11, 1992 awarded a contract to DSU for the
redevelopment study of Brooklyn Boulevard. An interview panel,
after reviewing proposals submitted by five consulting firms,
recommended DSU do the study. As part of their proposal, DSU
presented a preliminary work plan (Figure 2) which serves as the
schedule or flow chart for their study (see copy attached) . Mr.
Tim Griffin serves as Project Manager and has been our main contact
person with the consultant.
DSU began working on the project shortly after being awarded the
contract. The first phase of this study is an inventory and
analysis of Brooklyn Boulevard including preparing base maps and
reviewing past studies. Also, DSU was requested to review the
Phillips 66 proposal on 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. Various
meetings were held between the consultant and City staff during the
initial stage of the first phase to discuss the project schedule,
the Brooklyn Boulevard Study Task Force, the Phillips 66 proposal,
general background and data collection and the Community Vision
Workshop which was to be held during the course of the study. A
draft report on the Phillips 66 proposal was submitted to the staff
on July 2, was forwarded to the Phillips 66 people and has served
as a basis for further review and evaluation of their proposal.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Page 2
October 13, 1992
The Brooklyn Boulevard Study Task Force was appointed on July 13,
1992 and held its first meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 1992. A copy
of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study Task Force membership is attached
for the Council's information. To date the Task Force has met on
three occasions, July 28, August 11, and September 15, with most of
the members also attending the all day Community Vision Workshop
session which was held on Saturday, August 29, 1992 from 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m.
The Task Force has reviewed the results of the Vision Workshop and
has, for the most part, agreed upon a list of important issues
facing the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. With the conclusion of the
Task Force meeting on September 15, the consultant had completed
Phase 1 (see Task 109 on the flow chart) and began Phase 2, the
development of alternatives. The Brooklyn Boulevard Study Task
Force is scheduled to meet again on Tuesday, October 20, 1992 at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to review and evaluate
various alternatives for Brooklyn Boulevard. The study, although
somewhat behind schedule, seems to be progressing in a satisfactory
manner.
It should be noted that Task Force member John Lescault informed me
that he was unable to continue serving on the Task Force because he
is moving to Coon Rapids and Karen Lang has been unable to attend
any of the Task Force functions to date. Also, no Chairperson has
been appointed.
I hope this report serves to update the City Council on the status
of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. We will be prepared to discuss
this matter further and answer Council questions during the City
Council meeting.
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES PLAN REFINEMENT
2 months 2
months Z months
I
102
pr ff e
Map 201
jd�. 106 Goats &
Background Objectives
�....
101 1. Context ; ' 107 18 109 202 204 205 301 302
2 Iand Use 'Optional is
P 3. Circulation Vision Working Alternative 303
Working IS Presentation Final
es Evaluation clang Draft
Irutratron 104 4. Parking 'orksho8: & Conference Corridor
Issue •._.... ties Con cepts Conference CoPmdor Review Plan
works 5. Visual Image
& ual 6. Devel. Trends 203
Sure 7. Code Review
r — — — — Alternative
1 105 1 Corridor
Optional Policies
1 Pe�onai 1
Interviews 1
L - - - -r
Figure 2
PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM •
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY ° �T AVE PLANNERS H
SUITE AVENUE NO,TN l
SUITE lq
M=H zmL15. MH 55Mi
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STUDY
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
DIANE REEM 6225 Chowen Avenue North 561 -2690
RON CHRISTENSEN 6101 June Avenue North 533 -1930
MARK HOLMES 7207 Grimes Avenue North 560 -3036
ROBERT TORRES 4501 Winchester Lane 537 -0813
ROBERT MICKELSON 4006 61st Avenue North 536 -9187
TRAYCE OLSEN 3910 65th Avenue North 537 -9020
BONNIE LUKES 3300 62nd Avenue North 561 -2097
(w) 533 -1930
DON ROSEN 6850 Brooklyn Boulevard 561 -4320
KAREN LANG 7061 Perry Avenue North 561 -8172
JOHN LESCAULT 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard 566 -9330
JANIS BLUMENTALS 6205 Earle Brown Drive 561 -5757
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Melling Date October 13, 1992
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
METRO 2015: VISION AND GOALS
DEPT. APPRO .
Gerald nter, City Manager
MANAGER'S REVIEWIRECOAMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMLRY EXPLANATION: (PP su lemental sheets attached )
The Metropolitan Council is in the process of developing a Vision and Goals statement of what
P P P g
the believe the Twin City region should be in the year 2015. The produced an initial document
Y tY � Y Y P
which was greeted with mixed reviews. I have attached a copy of a resolution from the City of
Minneapolis which summarizes some of the reactions various groups and communities in the metro
area had to the initial draft. Since the original draft was developed the Metropolitan Council has
been in the process of modifying the initial document. Late this week I received a copy of the
revised document and have attached it for your review. This last week at a Metro Council Chair's
Advisory Committee meeting there was an extended discussion regarding the Metro 2015 document
and an additional document and staff report labeled the Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework.
I have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the revised 2015 Vision and Goals Statement
that is attached hereto but I understand it addresses some of the criticisms leveled at the original
document. It is your staff's opinion that the original document needs to be modified to make more
forceful statements in the area of housing, human services and balanced growth. The initial 2015
document seemed to gloss over, or not thoroughly address, these issues.
The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework document more thoroughly addresses
some of the concerns missing from the initial 2015 document. It is a document which identifies
many of the issues the metropolitan area will have to face in the future and is written in a style
which is specific and understandable. The Metropolitan Council Chair has stated the Council will
address the concerns relating to housing, human services and balanced growth issues as a part of
their review of the Development and Investment Framework but it is the Council's intention to
pass a modified 2015 document and then, if as a part of a review of the Metropolitan Development
and Investment Framework document there is a need to go back and modify the Vision and Goals
they are prepared to do that.
It has been the position of the North Metro Mayors group the 2015 Vision and Goals document
should not be adopted until Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework review has
been complete.
RECOMMENDATION
Please review the enclosed revised Metro 2015 Vision and Goals document and the Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework document with a view to discussing the merits of the
documents so as to develop a Brooklyn Center position.
P Yn
Ft F 01
�S o
DATE of the
CITY of
MINNEAPOLIS
By - Rainville, Cramer and Campbell
Expressing concerns relating to the deficiencies of Metro Vision 2015
Plan.
Whereas, the Metropolitan Council has produced a long -range planning
document entitled, "Metro 2015; Vision and Goals "; and
Whereas, the Metropolitan Council has announced its intention of using
"Metro 2015" as a guide in the revision of the "Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework (MDIF) "; and
Whereas, the MDIF is the basic document which puts forth the long -range
view of how this region 1s to develop; and
Whereas, the Minneapolis Planning Commission in its review of "Metro
2015" found it to be deficient due to its avoidance of issues of
- Race, poverty and the inner city;
The continuing importance of the center in a unified
metropolitan economy;
- Housing;
- A clear physical development vision (including balanced growth
throughout the region); and
Whereas, the St. Paul Planning Commission in its review of "Metro 2015"
found the document to be deficient because the vision
- Lacks focus and rigor regarding the economic picture;
- Lacks choice;
- Lacks a bold approach to governance;
- Is exclusionary; and
Whereas. the Northern Metro Mayors Association in its review of "Metro
2015" found it to be deficient because of failure to address
- The broad area of human and social services:
- The health and well being of the core cities;
Balanced regional growth; and
Whereas, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities in its review
of "Metro 2015" expressed concern that the document should address
- The concentration of poverty in the Central Cities;
- Geographically balanced growth for the region;
- Housing in general; and
IOW CJ 1 5C: 5 l GO d U Cj�
u
Whereas, the q uestion f ba lanc ed gro wth t hro ug ho ut h r e g ion was also
. q stion o ba a ced gro t t oug out t o eg
raised by such groups as the Minnesota Association of Urban Counties, the
Metro HRA Advisory Committee, and the St. Paul Pioneer Press; and
Whereas, the concern for the lack of emphasis on the question of
growing disparities within the region was also by legislators, the
Minneapolis Downtown Council, and the Chat Advisory Committee; and
Whereas, the Metropolitan Council should view that its role is to
stimulate and facilitate discussion and debate over the central issues
facing this region;
Now, Therefore. Be It Resolved by The City Council of The City of
Minneapolis:
That any long -range planning document for the region must address the
questions of growing disparities within the region and balanced growth
throughout the region to be an adequate document.
Be It Further Resolved that failure to address these issues will mean
that any other goals and the entire vision are unattainable.
Be It Further Resolved that work on the Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework should not proceed until these issues have been
completely and overtly addressed.
Be It Further Resolved that the Metropolitan Council should structure
an overt examination and discussion of these issues.
Be It Further Resolved that the entire region - local and state
government, business, the non profit sector, the education community,
private citizens, etc., should be involved in this discussion.
RE D NCEL Y4TE lNt11CA'1'ES VdTt
COLM#CIL NOT � TO VOTE TO COUNCIL NOT VOTE TO VOTE TO
MEMBER AYE NAY VOTING ABSENT RI WSTAIN MOMOCR AYE NAY VOTING ABS 0 Y E RAIDE 1SWU3TAIN
r��k � SCatNO/i
Wood Ni�mJ+o
Ngwy
CnatNr
Res
.J&Vman
N/Knd Pntid�tt
3eoK 811 a�Jtw+
PASSED DATE APPROVED— NOT APPROVED —VETOED
PRESIDENT Of OOVNGL MAYOR
• w� A T"
Metro 2015
Vision and Goals
Sept. 25 draft
Version does not indicate strikeout and shading
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 291.6359 TIED 291.0904
Publication No. 040.92.104
Oct. 8, 1992
Printed on Recycled Paper
Measures .............................. ...............................
2
t '
r
page
I ntroduction ................................. ...............................
Why Vis ion? ............................ ...............................
The Starting Point .......................... ...............................
KeyOoal Areas ............................ ...............................
H ow the Goals Were Developed ........................... 6 4 . 0 0 4 . . . . . 6 .. 0 0 4 6 .
Where the Goals Will Take Us: A Summary ........................................
Goals ................
Introduction............................... ...............................
AStrong Economy .......................... ...............................
G oals ..............
. ................... ...............................
Measures
Effective Governance ............ .
Coals ..............
.................. ...............................
Measu res .............................. ...............................
EffectiveTransportation ....................................................
.
4444. ..
Goals........... , ..................... ...............................
Measures .............................. ...............................
Leading -Edge Telecommunications ............................................
Goals ................. ..............
. ...............................
Measu res .............................. ...............................
Quality Education .......................... ...............................
C aaia ................... ............. ...
.. 4444 .......................
Measures ............. 4444. ...
2
t
Individual Well Being, Family and Community ....................................
G oals ................................. ...............................
Measures .............................................................
Responsibility to the Environment ........ ..... I ........................ • ... .
Goals ................... ............. ...............................
Measures .............................................................
Arts, Culture and Recreational Opportunities ....................................
Goals................................. ...............................
Measures .............................. ...............................
Appendices ..... ............................... ............................
Listof Focus Group Members .............................................
List of Groups Council Met with to Discuss
Metro200 ........................... ............................... .
List of Correspondence Received .................... • ....... • • • • ....... • • • •
3
Introduction
This document contains the Metropolitan Council's "vision" of what the Twin Cities Region
should be like in the year 2015.
Why a Vision?
The Metropolitan Council believes the region can have a vision of the Twin Cities in the future,
and the region can bring about its vision through decisions made every day. Some people think we
can't shape our future. This is not very appealing. The region should not, to borrow Henry David
Thoreau's terms from Walden, simply "practice resignation" as our approach to the future.
Le t's Twin C ities we wa n t it to be rather than just what it will otherwise become.
. I,e m the C�t�es what n �
The nation of Japan is clear proof of the value of having a vision and the ability to attain it. In
about 30 years, the country went from producing cheap plastic flowers and toys to manufacturing
high quality engines and electronics. Japan was able to do this because it had a vision. It achieved
Its vision in a period of rapid overall technological and socio- economic change. So the speed of
change is no reason not to have a vision, as some argue,
The course of the 20th century was set in large measure by the discoveries made during the last
12 years of the 19th century. Inventors gave us the electric light bulb, the telephone, the
skyscraper, the elevator and the automobile. Those inventions made today's cities possible. What
are the inventions and other forces driving change today? How do we prepare ourselves for the
future?
4
In its first 25 years, the Metropolitan Council has looked ahead to plan solutions for important
problems facing the region. Now it is looking ahead to the next 25 years. What does this region
want to be, to look like and to offer its citizens in 20157 The Council is responsible for making
long -range plans today to help ensure the region's health and vitality in the 21st century. Setting
goals for the region is a first step.
As the Council begins to update its keystone regional plan, the Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework, it needs to examine the problems and opportunities the region will face
over the next two decades. The policies in the framework will help guide our growth and
development, but we need to know where we want to be in 2015 - -we need a vision.
The Council is specifically charged by statute to prepare goals and plans for the orderly and
economic development of the region. In addition, the Council has been challenged and
encouraged to provide leadership in long -range planning for the region. Creating a vision has
helped In that effort.
The Starting Point
The Council set a basic assumption in establishing a vision:
To achieve the highest quality living in a community setting with the flexibility to accommodate the
changing population and compete in a world economy. To pursue the region's future with a
sensitivity and respect for our environment in our development and redevelopment practices.
5
Key Goal Areas
Achieving this vision will require the region to be strong in eight areas. These are areas the
Council, and we believe, the people of the region value now and will continue to into the future.
The eight areas are as follows. They arc not listed in any order of priority.
• A Strong Economy
• Effective Governance
• Effective Transportation
• Leading -Edge Telecommunications
• Quality Education
* Individual Well Being, Family and Community
0 Responsibility to the Environment
• Arts, Culture and Recreational Opportunities
The goals developed in the eight areas describe where we want to be, rather than ways to get
there. At a later stage, it will be necessary to identify strategies to accomplish the goals and the
appropriate actors to implement them.
In addition, some kind of measures are needed to determine whether the region is meeting its
goals. This document includes examples of possible measures for each of the eight goal areas.
I
6
How the Goals Were Developed
The goals were drafted by small discussion groups made up of Council members, staff and
members of the'Council's Minority Issues Advisory Committee in the spring of 1992. The groups
benefitted from ideas of national and local experts who spoke to them, including educators,
economists, academicians, planners, representatives of the telecommunications industry and
others.
Then, during July, August and September, 1992, the Council met with a large number of local and
metropolitan -wide organizations to get ideas and comments on these goals. The Council held
eight focus groups made up of 100 Twin Citians to probe their values and reactions to the goals.
A town meeting, provided another way for groups and the general public to present their
reactions to the draft vision and goals, In all, the Council met with 83 groups during the period
(See Appendices for list).
The Council reviewed the comments made at all these meetings, revised the vision and goals, and
adopted them on 1992. The next step involves developing strategies to accomplish the
vision.
This vision is not static. It will change as the region's and the world's conditions change. The
vision will be reexamined after the Council completes its revision of its Metropolitan Development
and Investment Framework, which is the Council's plan and strategy for managing regional growth,
and periodically thereafter. The Council expects to adopt a new development framework at the
end of 1993.
7
1
Where the Goals Will Take Us: A Summary
It is the year 2613. The location: the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. We see a region that is a
strong, well- established player in the global marketplace. We realized many years ago that
metropolitan areas, not nations, would be the key economic competitors in the international
playing field.
We realized we had to be more organized in the way we bolstered the region's economy. Our
young people are achieving their full potential In school; our regional quality of life has attracted
talented people and dollar investments; and we've adequately invested in our essential
infrastructure to support economic activity and the basic needs of our urban society. The result
has been an improved regional standard of living, supported by substantial job growth and a
diverse economy. Greater Minnesota has prospered from spin -off companies and jobs located in
the region. The economic health and vitality of the Twin Cities Area has helped form a strong
state economy.
Communities in the region have willingly cooperated in seeking business, jobs and revenues based
on regional interests rather than the interests of individual communities, This cooperation
enables the region to compete as one economic unit in national and international markets.
` We've made the region a leader in the use of technological advances in transportation and
telecommunications, which support the economy and quality of life in the region and in greater
Minnesota. Our telecommunications system uses leading -edge technology to link our voices,
video images and data with destinations within the region, and around the state, nation and the
S
f ,
globe. Telecommunications is now considered as essential an infrastructure as transportation,
sewers and education.
The region leads in using technological advances in transportation like "intelligent" vehicle and
highway systems., At the same time, we've made better use of the facilities we have by managing
travel demand and charging users a variety of transportation "prices," like congestion fees and
parking surcharges. Our transit system, now very consumcr- oriented, has more passengers each
year. Our major airport is an international hub, with direct flights to cities around the country
and the world.
Government at all levels has become more innovative and cost - efficient in delivering services and
solving problems. Government roles are clearly defined so that services are delivered at the most
effective and efficient level. People have responded with renewed interest in governmental affairs
and higher voting rates show it. People feel a strop cr sense of belonging to their communities
g g g
within the region, and they participate and feel comfortable in their community. At the same
time, people feel that they belong to one metropolitan region. _
We still have a strong environmental awareness. But we thinly less now about mitigating negative
effects on the environment, and more about designing urban development and its support
facilities with nature and people in mind. Our air and water are cleaner; our waste is less toxic
and we're producing less of it per capita. We can swim and fish in our three major rivers and in
our lakes that have the greatest potential for recreation or water supply.
The region has an abundance of accessible recreation, cultural and information opportunities.
Health care is accessible to everyone who needs It, but most people take responsibility for
9
pursuing a healthful lifestyle. Families of all types get the support they need to care for their
family members, including children and elderly people. The percentage of residents living in
poverty has declined.
Housing is affordable for more of the region's residents, and it is designed to suit people at
various stages of their lives and people with special needs. More employment opportunities are
Iocated near affordable housing and more affordable housing near new jobs. Our aging
neighborhoods have been rehabilitated and a sense of community strengthened there. Our streets
are safer and crime rates lower.
We've planned the region's growth into a pattern that has reduced traffic congestion, the cost of
public services, energy consumption, air pollution, and more of the negative effects on the
environment. Urban design concepts have helped create a sense of place, with open spaces,
natural features public buildings gs and transportation facilities. .
10
Goals
Introduction
This document has eight goal areas that are the keys to a healthy, successful Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area in the year 2015. The goals, taken collectively, will bring about a high quality
of life, elements of which we already enjoy today. People live here because the region has more
appeal than other places do. People here Iike the region's living conditions, physical surroundings,
community life, work life and leisure time activities. The goals will help preserve the quality of life
that exists today and ameliorate factors that restrain all people from fully enjoying what the region
has to offer.
One of the themes crossing many of the goal areas is that all Twin Citians do not share equally In
the region's quality of life. There are a number of socio- economic disparities experienced by
people of different races, ages and levels of income. The disparities also have a geographical
dimension, such as ones that arise between the older communities (essentially Minneapolis, St.
Paul and flrst ring suburbs) and the newer developing suburbs. The 1990 federal Census surprised
many. It said the disparities grew significantly during the 1980s, in spite of governmental and
private sector efforts to deal with them. The problems will require actions (strategies) to address
them, but strategies must follow, and carry out goals. The focus of Metro 2015 is on goals.
The goal areas are interrelated, and could be grouped differently or subdivided in a number of
ways. For example, telecommunications will influence the transportation system (telecommuting
rather than driving to work), the education system (teaching via two -way video or as a change in
11
ti
the school library as we know it today), or the economy (the fast transmission of huge amounts of
information across the globe). Preserving the region's natural environment or protecting its open
spaces helps make the region a desirable place to live and do business. Metro 2015 suggests some,
but not all, of these relationships.
The goals do not imply that the region is an island unto itself. The economic goals reflect the
importance of being a player in the state, national and international marketplace. Strategies to
carry out the region's vision and goals will be coordinated with plans of state agencies and other
units of government in greater Minnesota. Strategies for economic development, transportation,
telecommunications, and physical growth and development, in particular, will evolve in
conjunction with state -level planning.
A Strong Economy
For many years the region has been a good place to live, work and establish businesses. Its
economy has experienced steady employment growth and relatively low unemployment rates well
below those for Minnesota and the U.S. Manufacturing industries, with higher paying jobs,
gained some jobs, though service industries have gained the most. The region is home to 15 firms
on the Fortune 500 list of industrial firms. In per capita personal income, the region ranked sixth
among the 25 largest U.S. metro areas in 1989.
This success has largely been credited to the region's skilled labor force and to our diverse
economy. But in recent years a number of clouds have appeared on the economic horizon.
There are questions about how well we are educating our labor force; the computer industry has
reduced its work force; global competition Is increasing and world markets are changing. In
addition, there are concerns about inadequate productivity growth, our ability to maintain
12
competitive advantages in computers and medical equipment, and the demand for government
services versus the willingness to pay for those services.
The region's future success is dependent upon increasing the pool of highly skilled jobs filled by
highly skilled labor, both professional and technical. Trends in the 1980s raise serious questions
about whether it is possible to greatly expand the number of "living wage" jobs. For example, the
biggest increase in employment during the decade was in the low paying service and retail sectors.
Employment is expected to continue moving away from the central cities and into the suburbs
over the next 25 years. This suburban employment growth, if it occurs, will mean that people will
be travelling to the job -rich suburbs in far greater numbers for service and retail work, but many
will not be able to afford the higher priced housing in those suburbs.
The region's business competition is no longer the other cities in the U.S.; it is other cities around
the world. Is the region prepared to compete and thrive in this changing environment?
Goal$
1. In the year 2415, the region is recognized as a major player in the global economy, based on
the following:
The region has a highly educated workforce with skills important to the regional economy,
and with the ability to learn new skills as the economy changes in response to the national
and international economies. These would include a wide range of skills—for example, in
design and manufacturing as well as in management and finance.
13
r
The region has a duality of life that attracts and keeps both businesses and a highly skilled
and adaptable workforce.
Infrastructure developed by regional and local governments and by the private sector
supports regional economic activity and encourages job growth that meets the needs of the
population.
Infrastructure financing- -using cooperative arrangements, where possible -- reflects the full
costs of facilities through their life cycle -- including costs of capital, operation, maintenance
and replacement.
2. The region's economy experiences steady growth in the gross regional product per capita,
thereby increasing the regional standard of living.
The region's economy is diverse and flexible in terms of using regional strengths and
resources (labor market, Investment capital, infrastructure, natural resources, etc.) to adapt
to changing regional and world markets and to develop, attract and retain industries- -and the
jobs -- serving those markets.
3. Job growth provides employment that raises the low and middle per capita income levels.
The region provides employment opportunities that offer a living wage and ensure
employment rates and wages for women and people of color equal to those for white males.
4. Employment opportunities are located close to'the workforce and are accessible by public
transit. Affordable housing opportunities are available in areas with growing employment.
Workers have affordable day care options, and have natural amenities nearby.
i
14
5. Communities in the region are more willing to cooperate in seeking business, jobs and
revenues based on regional interests rather than on the interests of individual communities.
Such cooperation -- assisted by a more equitable tax structure, a tnore equitable provision of
q
needed services and more appropriate use of public investments in private undertakings—
helps enable the region to compete as one economic unit in national and international
markets. Communities cooperate so growth in one community in the region doesn't come at
the expense of another community.
6. The region has more corporate headquarters of public and private firms, an entrepreneurial
small business environment and firms that lead the world in research and
manufacturing in
select areas.
Banks, insurance companies, venture capital companies and other sources of investment
capital in the region provide adequate funds to invest in start -up and expansion of Iocal firms
and to nurture entrepreneurial efforts,
7. The region's businesses and residents get value for taxes paid, and the tax structure does not
create disincentives to new or expanding businesses.
8. The growth of the regional economy is based on a regional economic development plan that
is synchronized with the state's economic development plan.
Measures (comparison over time)
Unemployment rate compared to other urban areas
15
Per capita personal income in region compared to other urban areas (per capita gross regional
product compared to other urban areas)
Percent of population and target population groups below the poverty level compared to other
urban areas (percent of population above 150 percent of poverty rate)
Employment growth rate compared with previous years and comparable regions (employment
growth rate in specific industries)
Mix of industries in region compared to mix in the nation (diversity)
Composite measures of tax burden on individuals (rankings) and on businesses (rankings)
Per capita income for women and racial and ethnic minorities
Ratio of workers in manufacturing to service and retail sectors
Number of persons unemployed more than 26 weeks
Percent real growth in average wages per worker
Ratio of the region's average wages per worker to the national average
Accessibility of employment by public transit
Number of businesses with child care available to employees
lb
1
Effective Governance
Government in the early 1990s has fallen on lean times. Regional and local government has been
experiencing declining federal support; political leadership has been criticized or challenged; and
many citizens feet powerless and pessimistic about their government. There are myriad forms and
layers of government, which makes coordination difficult. Government's formal and informal
structures may be unable to address such problems.
The challenge to government is to bring new people into the process both as participants and in
leadership positions, particularly minorities and women whose participation in the past had been
limited; to develop a renewed sense of confidence in government's ability to solve problems by
allowing decision- making at the neighborhood or community levels where innovation and
flexibility n be encouraged; to act decisively and in the broader regional interest at the regional
h' g Y g
level for those problems that need a central focus. A renewed emphasis on governance -- acting
collectively to solve problems.-is essential_ On the other hand, the public needs to have realistic
expectations of government. Government cannot, nor should it, be viewed as the "be all and and
all" problem solver. Some Issues are more appropriately addressed by the private sector.
People and governmental units need to think of themselves as being part of one region. The
region cannot be a collection of cities all competing against one another.
In governance, there is often a need to balance competing priorities- -for example, the desire for
government to be "close to the people," on one hand, and, on the other, expectations for
government services to be efficient and economical, often requiring centralization. The Metro
Council also sees itself - -and other regional agencies -- performing a central ,governance role. It
17
includes strong leadership in the resolution of regional issues, bolstered by additional authority to
decide how state funds are spent in the Metropolitan Area for public infrastructure and to
determine where and when public subsidies will be used for facilities of region -wide importance.
Goals
1. In the year 2015 all segments of the public have opportunities to participate in decisions that
affect their lives and the future of their communities. Citizen decision- making takes place at
the neighborhood and community level, whenever possible. Some decisions that are of a
larger community interest or address city, county or regional goals issues need to be decided
at those levels. Yet citizen decision- making is fostered in every level of government.
Greater numbers of people of color participate in all levels of government. Eliminated are
past perceptions that people of color only represent singular interests of their respective
races or ethnieities. Decisions made now reflect the collective population because they are
based on diverse perspectives and alternative ways to look at issues.
2. People have confidence in their elected and appointed government officials. The region has
. a high level of political participation (such as voting and the number of p ersons running
for
office). Participants and leaders are more representative of the diversity of the region.
3. Government roles and responsibilities are appropriately and clearly defined, and are based
on realistic expectations of what government can do.
Regional and local policymaking and service delivery occur at the most effective and efficient
level, and gaps in services are closed. The role of government reflects the results of a review
18
private actions thereby reducing de
of strategies to increase prt Y g endence on government for p
services.
4. Governmental units meet the community's needs by redesigning the service delivery system
and using other innovative approaches, public or private, to deliver public services.
5. The Metropolitan Council is the region's leader for policy planning, which provides direction,
integration and coordination of regional services. The Council decides how federal and state
funds allocated to the Metropolitan Area for public infrastructure will be spent, It decides
on major direct and indirect public investments that support facilities of region -wide
importance located within the Metropolitan Area. The jurisdiction of the Council may well
include a larger geographic area.
Measures
Opinion poll measures on people's confidence In local government
Voter participation rates
Number of service redesign projects compacted
Level of Metro Council participation in public decisions regarding facilities of region -wide
importance sited in the region
Effective Transportation
The transportation problems the region faces today and in the future stem from our need and
desire for personal mobility, as well as from our present spread out urban development pattern. In
addition, the system is unable to meet the needs of economically disadvantaged and transit
19
ti
dependent people, which results in immobility and isolation. The dispersal of jobs into outlying
suburban locations exacerbates the problem. Our life style involves pursuing many activities in
many locations. And to meet those needs, the automobile-- speeilically the automobile with a sole
occupant.-has been the mode of choice for the vast majority of people.
However, using our cars as vehicles to carry just one person has been a major factor in causing
our transportation problems. For example, it is primarily responsible for the growing problem of
congestion during peak travel periods. Betwccn 1972 and 1984, the number of severely congested
freeway miles tripled and will continue to increase.
With many Y cars having only a solo driver, our extensive highway system has not been used
efficiently. During peak periods, average auto occupancy has dropped and people now make
more trips than they did 20 years ago.
Heavy use of the single- occupant auto is also a major factor in causing the negative environmental
effects caused by the building and operation of our transportation system. It is an expensive way
to move people. And it has promoted a spread -out land use pattern that makes it difficult to
serve many parts of our region with economical transit service.
Transit means any vehicle (a car, bus, train, van) that has two people in it. Transit can increase
the efficiency of the transportation system. But bus ridership declined by one fourth from 1980 to
1990. Carpooling has also fallen. However, there is a base of transit users from which to build
riders. The challenge facing the region is to make these modes more attractive while making use
of single- occupant vehicles less attractive and convenient.
20
Goods, like people, need to be moved efficiently throughout the region and to the state, national
and world marketplace. A system for goods movement by truck, barge, rail or airplane needs to be
In place.
Airport capacity is another major issue. The region risks forgoing substantial economic gains if
adequate airport capacity is not available as needed in a timely fashion over the next 25 years.
Goals
1. In the year 2015, the transportation system moves people and goods within the region and to
the state, nation and world efficiently, cost - effectively and safely. The transportation system
is developed in ways that preserve the integrity of the environment, allow for economic
growth and development, and support other regional goals. The system allows for rapid
transport of goods by air, road, rail or waterway. The system also reflects the region's
leadership in the use of advanced transportation technology (for example, "intelligent"
vehicle and highway systems, high -speed rail, hover craft) that maximizes the system's
capacity and efficiency.
2. The regional transportation system balances demand and capacity so that resources are used
most efficiently and the environment is least affected. This is achieved by managing how
existing facilities are used. -for example by reducing use of single - occupant vehicles, changing
people's travel behavior, such as the time that people make trips, reducing the number of
trips, changing the mode of transit to encourage use of bicycles or telecommuting. In
addition, incentives to use transit, as well as disincentives to the single occupant vehicle, will
be needed in order to get the maximum use out of the system. The system also balances
local, state and national mobility needs.
21
t
3. Transit is the preferred choice over the single- occupant automobile for many more people.
An adequately funded and improved transit system makes regular -route transit, such as
buses or light rail transit, paratransit and ridesharing more attractive for all users, With
d convenience of riders and drivers the transits stem increases
r con n ,
improved safety, comfort an Y
the people- carrying capacity of the transportation system as much as possible,
serves the
eo supplements the metropolitan highway
egos of transtt
-de endent and disabled le, s P S Y
n P people, Pp
system, maintains and enhances the economic vitality of the central cities and allows for
intensified development in other economic centers. The system meets the needs of reverse
commuters - -that is, people who go from the central cities to suburban job locations, or from
one suburb to another.
Land development and redevelopment create an environment that promotes and encourages
increased use of all forms of transit.
4. The efficiency of the transportation system is improved, and use of the system reflects the
environmental, social and financial costs to society. For example, the region is a national
leader in using a variety of transportation pricing, including "congestion pricing," "peak - period
pricing," parking surcharges and single- occupant vehicle taxes.
S. The region has a highway, rail, and waterway system that moves goods in and out of the
region efficiently and effectively.
6. The region has an air transportation system with the capabillty to meet the demand from
businesses and people in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest for air connections to the
nation and the world.
3
i
22
i
The region's major airport enjoys the presence of "home base" commercial airline facilities,
international hubbing and a competitive airline market, with a the sizable presence of several
national commercial airlines. Direct passenger and air freight services are available to the
world's major cities.
The region's major airport, and its satellite airports, provide convenient and safe air travel,
and cause the least amount of disruption to the environment.
Measures (comparison over time)
Miles of congested freeways
Vehicle occupancy
Transit ridership
Air quality measures
Application of "Intelligent" vehicle technology in transit service
Airline takeoffs and landings
Number of international airline flights from Twin Cities Area
Number of people living within noise contours for the region's airports
Number of nonstop airline flights
Miles of bike pathways
Volume of goods moved
Leading -Edge Telecommunications
Telecommunications - -and access to it - - will become increasingly vital to the fundamental economic
health of the Twin Cities Region in the years ahead. That's a lesson history can teach us.
23
This region grew to national economic prominence in part because the railroads, then the
highways, then today's jet airplanes gave the region's businesses good connections to the national
market. These facilities gave the region a way to overcome its rernote inland location to sell and
ship its ideas and products to the nation, and more recently, to the world. Now,
telecommunications is increasingly being viewed as the next key infrastructure, as important to the
region as the railroads and highways were in the region's economic history.
Telecommunications involves the transmission of voice (phone), data (computer) or video
Information. The region's businesses need the same access - -or better - -to advanced
telecommunications as businesses in other regions enjoy in order to compete in a world
marketplace. In the future, telecommunications will continue to have a profound impact on the
region in education, in lifestyle, and in the business setting, among others.
In addition, the region needs modern, high - capacity telecommunications services because people
need access to information within and outside of the region and because telecommunications
offers seemingly boundless opportunities for people to learn, earn a living and enjoy a higher
quality of life. Unequal opportunities, experts argue, will lead to a society of "information rich"
and "information poor."
Telecommunications could help solve other problems. It could aid in solving central city problems,
where, for example, the presence of advanced telecommunications facilities could help offset the
disadvantage of high redevelopment casts. Telecom muting could also reduce peak- period travel
or travel in congested corridors because people work out of their homes.
However, private providers of advanced telecommunications capabilities have not upgraded their
equipment here as rapidly as they have in other regions. High - capacity fiber optic transmission
24
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
OCT-08-92 THU 15:38 I D : NETROPOL I TAN COUNCIL TEL N0:612 291 6550 #305 P20 -
lines are not available throughout the region. If the transmission of voice, data and video
experiences a boom as some predict, the existing infrastructure may not be adequate to do the
job,
By and large, governmental units in the region have their own networks to move data or
communicate with their police and fire departments. Telecommunications•.and facility- sharing --
may give them a way to provide more effective services more efficiently. But there is no
coordinated approach, or public sector planning, in telecommunications. The new 800 megahertz
system, a proposed transmission network for local government communications in the region, may
provide a window of opportunity for coordination, as does the state's Statewide
Telecommunications Access and Routing System (STARS) approach. Without such networks,
each unit of government has to made its own arrangements with telecommunications vendors to
get its needs met.
Goals
1. In the year 2015 the region has "leading -edge" telecommunications services readily available
to all businesses and homes.
High- capacity telecommunication transmission facilities and networks move information
within the region and state, and to national and worldwide destinations.
The region's telecommunications infrastructure gives businesses a competitive advantage in
producing and selling products and services to the nation and the world, In addition,
telecommunications connects people to the information and resources they need to learn,
25
iL i tour uul i "iv uviv� l�
OCT-08—'92 THU 15:_73 I D: rIETROFOL I TAH COU111C I L TEL 110:612 291 3550 _705 P21 J '
work effectively, make decisions, enjoy the richness of the arts and culture of the region and
the world.
2. Telecommunications infrastructure is considered as fundamental to the effective functioning
of the region as are roads, sewers and parks.
i
3. The region has the telecommunications it needs to reach its social, educational, quality of
life, and economic goals.
The region uses telecommunications technology to its fullest extent to provide cost - efficient
access to information and services for all its residents. The region uses telecommunications
as a tool to implement regional policies.
Government agencies throughout the region use telecommunications technology to improve
the uali , effectiveness and coordination of their services.
9 �'
(comparison with previous year
Measures (comp p y )
Miles of fiber optic cable in place (or other new technology)
Region's telecommunications ranking nationally And internationally
Public- access points to data and information
Use of telecommunications in development and redevelopment activities
Percent of population that is "computer literate"
Percent of population with access to a personal computer
Percent of population with personal cellular telecommunications devices
26
Quality Education
Observers of the region's education system - -from education, business and government - -have said
that our schools' are better than the rest of the nation's - -but not good enough for our future.
They point out that we have a wealth of good public and private colleges and technical schools,
and that our elementary and high school students have traditionally performed very well compared
with those in other part of the United States. They also offer some criticisms that are
summarized below, and lay responsibility for the conditions they see on the doorstep of educators,
parents, the individual communities and society as a whole.
• Schools aren't focused enough on helping students learn; they are organized and operated
for adults, not for young peoples.
Expectations arc not set high enough and there are not enough h incentives for students or g g g
teachers to do well.
• Athletic achievement is valued more highly than academic achicvcmcnt.
• The region's high school graduation rate is high, but it may be so because the standards are
low. Most states require more instructional days and hours per day than Minnesota, and
only a small percentage of Minnesota's school districts have formal homework policies.
• The education system has not met the educational; needs of our growing population of
people of color. Dearly one -third of the region's high school dropouts in 1991 were students
of color.
27
i
• School boards have been criticized for focusing on financial and administrative matters at the
expense of students. School boards have also been called monopoly systems with exclusive
franchises that are reluctant to allow others to create alternative school options.
• Businesses find an increasing number of high school graduates ill- equipped to perform work
that requires even basic language and math skills. Yet, one -third of Minnesota's high school
districts have not established minimum standards for graduates' reading and mathematics
skills.
• According to the Minnesota Literacy ouncil more than 500 000 Minnesotans are unable
Y to
read, write, compute, problem -solve or cope with changing conditions sufficiently well to
meet the requirements of adult life in our society.
The uestion arises: What kind of education are our young t'
9 y g people getting for the money we
spend? In addition, how well is the system preparing young people, for the global economy of the
i
next century? Are students being prepared to learn throughout life? Is the retraining that is
occurring sufficient, and is the retraining taking place from a solid educational base?
Goals
1. Education is valued and supported. The regional community places a high value on
educating ts children and youth. It is a to
g � y p priority to provide financial and other resources
so that students can develop the capabilities they need to reach their full potential.
i
28
2, Education is focused on students, and helping them learn is the highest priority of education.
All students are interested in learning and know how to learn - -they can use information,
solve problems and work in teams. Being "educated" means being equipped with the
academic, social and personal skills to earn a living and function well as a citizen, worker and
parent in a rapidly changing society.
The community sets high expectations for students. It stresses students' efforts and honors
their academic achievements. Students understand the community's expectations and know
they have to demonstrate mastery of specific skills in order to graduate.
3. The community encourages innovation and excellence in teaching that improves the way
students learn. It supports and rewards these efforts. Schools and teachers are rewarded
based rimaril results.
1? Y on r
The teaching profession should be made up of peoplc whu reflect the cultural diversity of
the region. Teaching careers are sought after by people who have a passion for teaching and
learning. People with diverse backgrounds, including multi - cultural experiences, obtain
certification using their education, practical and professional experiences. The profession
attracts and retains the best educators.
4. The governance of public education is broadly based, involving parents, students, educators
and many others In the community.
S. A restructured school system that provides expanded learning opportunities, beginning with
early childhood, has replaced the conventional K -12 public school structure of the 20th
29
. J
century. Families and students choose among a broad range of school organizations, settings
and schedules. Students progress based on demonstrated competency of the material.
Often, they are grouped across ages to learn from each other. Much of their Iearning takes
place in the community at business, government and other sites. Learning is enhanced by
extensive use of technology,
6. The entire community - -in a cooperative, coordinated effort--joins teachers in working to
nurture, support and applaud all students in their educational efforts. It provides a safe,
healthy environment that promotes learning. Families are actively involved in their children's
education and create a home environment that encourages learning. Schools are "community
centers" where citizens interact with students to help them learn. Businesses, civic
organizations, social- service agencies, and secular and religious organizations provide learning
opportunities and recognize academic achievement.
7. Cultural differences are celebrated and shared. Students learn about and respect the
practices, beliefs and historical contributions of different cultures.
8. Higher education In the region is available to all students based on ability to learn and
choice, rather than on ability to pay.
9. Higher education facilities and programs are coordinated so they serve the educational needs
of the region's "customers " -- students, employers and society as a whole. Each institution has
a well - defined mission within the larger system. Institutions share faculty, facilities, libraries
and telecommunications to meet needs efficiently and cost - effectively.
30
10. Educational institutions prepare students academically to continue their education, and
provide linkages that encourage and help students to make transitions from high school to
post - secondary to baccalaureate degree programs. They also provide ample opportunities for
employed adults to attend graduate -level programs.
11. The region's higher education institutions foster research and development as part of their
mission to educate students and generate discoveries of new knowledge.
11 Everyone continues to learn throughout their lives. The community--business, industry,
labor, government and education- -has collaborated to reach the region's educational goals.
The region is providing affordable continuing education alternatives and opportunities that
are flexible enough to meet the people's needs for job training, citizenship, a better
understanding of the complexity of the natural environment and other learning in a rapidly
changing world.
13. Everyone has opportunities for retraining and reemployment. Each student graduating from
high school, technical or vocational colleges has the knowledge and skills necessary to obtain
a job, and over the long run, to compete and be successful in the employment market.
14. The region's educational system produces a highly - skilled and motivated work force that fuels
our businesses' efforts to grow and compete in the global economy.
31
Measures
School readiness - -an indicator that the student has the health, nutrition, developmental skills and
family support necessary for success in school, compared over time
Average state score on school achievement tests as a ratio to the national average, or, as an
alternative, the proposed competency -based graduation requirement of the Minnesota State
Hoard of Education (1992)
Schools with drop -out rates over 10 percent ( "drop -out" is defined as a student absent from school
for a 12 month period, a definition used nationally)
Percentage of high- school and college graduates who are pursuing advanced education or training
one year after high - school, compared over time
Percentage of recent high - school graduates rated average or better in work skills by their
employers, compared over time
Progress and status assessed at regular intervals u
. g g ervals thra ghaut school years
Percentage of students of color completing degree programs, compared over time
Extent to which higher educational institutions attain measurable ualit indicators as defined b
4 Y Y
their customers (students and their employers)
Individual Well- Being, the Family and Community
A decent, affordable place to live, affordable healthcare and the safety and security of person
and property are basic needs that must be met. Yet in 1992 the region is seeing a growing
disparity in the realization of these fundamental needs. The disparity is occurring along social and
economic lines, as well as along geographic lines -- between the older, fully developed part of the
region and newer suburbs, The region has a formidable challenge before it in order to meet the
32
needs. The crime rate, fvr example, has continued to go up, and the central cities are
experiencing most of the growth. The lack of affordable housing continues to plague the region
despite decades of efforts to deal with the problem.
One out of 12 people are not covered by health insurance for all or part of the year. Moreover,
the Infant mortality rate - -often linked to a lack of prenatal care- -has increased for people of
ethnic and racial minoritics.
Generally, health, housing and crime issues have disproportionate repercussions on people of
color. In the future, these problems may be more vexing as the minority population grows and
more people become elderly.
Parents should be able to expect that they can raise their children in the best possible
environment and that they and their family will not be trapped in poverty or hindered by
discrimination. But in 1990, more than one of every 10 children in the region lived in poverty;
over one third of families headed by women had incomes below the poverty level. For people of
color, the percent living in poverty was much higher.
As these issues are addressed, the region needs to foster a sense in its people that they have a
personal stake in their local communities and in other communities in the region. The
weaknesses of some communities can affect the future of others. People who have the means
should be willing to give of their time and money to make the region a better place to live- -
viable, progressive and ponstantly striving for improvcment. This spirit of contributing and caring
has been strong here and is an essential ingredient for building a better area In the future.
33
s
G oals
1. The region has a comprehensive, cost - effective system to deliver high - quality health care and
related services with choices in treatment alternatives for physical and mental illnesses. All
the region's residents have access to health care services. The region has a highly rated
emergency response system.
The region's health care system emphasizes preventing health problems and promoting
health and wellness. The region has improved the health status of its residents based on a
wide range of indicators - -for example, reduced deaths and injuries of children from family
abuse and neglect, a reduced death rate from cardiovascular disease, increased levels of
physical activity of the population, and increased immunization for infections diseases.
Z. All residents of the region feel safe and secure in their homes, neighborhoods stree
sidewalks, schools and parks. They have confidence that public safety personnel will respond
quickly and appropriately, regardless of where they live or their minority or economic status.
The region's ranking compared to the rates of violent and property crimes In other
metropolitan areas, both In the central cities and suburbs, are lower than the region's rank in
have
substantial) decreased.
sand use of
illegal drugs Y
size. Sale u
g 8
p opulation
3. All types of family structures are supported so .parents can carry out their responsibilities and
their children can develop into adults who take responsibility for themselves and their
community. The primary aim of public policy should be to strengthen the informal support
1�
i
3 4
I
system. Elderly and disabled people have every opportunity to live independently as much
and as long as possible. Extended families have more support to care for their members, and
people of all a support and care for each other.
S
F ages u
4. The basic needs of all of the areas population for shelter, food, water, clothing and energy
are met. The warning signs of widening socio- economic disparities recognized in the 1990s
have been addressed. The percentage of the region's population living in poverty has
decreased.
Everyone has equal opportunities for education, employment, affordable housing, leisure or
soclal activities regardless of their race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender,
disability, age, sexual orientation, or status with regard to public assistance.
Diverse cultural values and religious beliefs are recognized, respected and celebrated.
S. Residents of the region have a sense of pride in and belonging to their community, and a
concern for its long -range future, The region continues to be an example to other
metropolitan areas for its recognition of and participation in volunteerism, corporate
leadership and contributions to nonprofit charitable and cultural organizations.
5. Housing is affordable and available for all income groups throughout the urban area of the
region. People have the opportunity to rent or own housing anywhere In the urban area.
Appropriate housing is available for persons at all stages of their lives as well as for persons
with special housing needs.-people with disabilities, children, elderly and others.
35
IL
r '
Measures (comparison over time)
Percent of population, especially children, living below the poverty line
Number of repotted cases of child abuse or neglect
Number of teen pregnancies
Infant mortality rate
Drug and alcohol - related death rate
Number of homeless people
Percent of households below the median income spending more than 30 percent of income on
housing
Ranking of region among other metro areas in health care
Rates of violent crime and domestic violence
DWI arrest and conviction rates
Rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS
Percent of pretax revenue contributed by major businesses to social programs, the arts and other
activities
(SECTION HAS BEEN ADDED TO STRONG ECONOMY SECTION
ABOVE)
Responsibility to the Environment
This vision does not define the physical shape of the' region in 2015, nor the direction of growth
or density of development. The Council, with the help of the people of the region, intends to
conduct a thorough evaluation, of its current Metropolitan Development and Investment
36
Framework, and any alternative growth management strategies, in 1993, Nevertheless, the vision
suggests some factors that need to be considered in the preparation of the region's growth
management plan.
The environment encompasses both the natural resources of the area -- water, air, soils, minerals,
vegetation gnd animal life- -and the developed landscape that consists of the facilities and services
required by a large urban population. If the Metropolitan Area of 2015 is to be a better place to
hve to than it is today, there will have to be a closer relationship between the natural and the
human -built environment. Past degradation of the natural environment will need to be corrected,
and urban development will be fully integrated into the environment. New development will put
greater emphasis on good urban design and functional efficiency. The end result will be a
metropolitan area that is an attractive, well- functioning and exciting place to live for all of its
residents.
The region faces major challenges in pursuing these goals:
• 's Seven Count Metropolitan Area.
a b larger than coda p
The Metropolitan Area m e Y
Th Mctrop y g Y
• We need to continue improving water quality through better wastewater treatment as
our population increases, effluent standards become more strict, and costs go up.
• The amount of pollution from "nonpoint" sources (for example, from farms and paved
parking lots) must substantially decrease. it will require changes in the personal,
household and business practices of people in the region, as well as those upstream of
the region.
• We need to maintain the region's competitive advantage in water resources by managing
them wisely.
37
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
THU 15: I D : PIETROPOL I TAI I COU11C I L TEL [A0 :612 a 1 6550 #305 P32 _..
• We need to reduce the amount of waste we generate and find productive reuses for it
rather than burying it in landfills,
• We need to make better choices in the way we develop our land, to minimize the
a physical, Impacts on the environment and consider the full range of phys� , eco no mic and s ocial
consequences.
• The region needs to develop in a manner that allows us to economically and efficiently
provide the full range of urban facilities and services.
• We need to retain the historic, central role of the downtowns of Minneapolis and St.
Paul, even as the region continues to developed outward.
* We need to increase the concentration of development in the major suburban business
centers so they can become additional hubs of activity.
• We need to arrest the physical deterioration of houses and businesses, and bring
deteriorated areas into productive use.
• We need to develop and retain a sense of place and a local sense of distinctiveness
within the urbanized area.
• We need to continue to communicate and educate un the importance of preserving the
environment.
Goals
1. Large tracts of land with high- quality or unique natural resource and scenic values will be
available for public use. All public waters have public access,
2. All natural watercourses, including wetlands, channels, floodplains and shorelands arc
sufficiently protected to allow them to function naturally. The region continues to be "water
38
rich," and with careful management of this valuable resource, meets the multiple demands on
groundwater and surface water. The region's soil and mineral resources are carefully
managed.
3. There is swimmable and fishable water quality in the region's three major rivers and some
100 takes with major potential for recreation or for domestic water supply. Levels of
nonpoint•source pollution generated locally are as Iow as possible under existing technology
and within economic constraints. Levels of such pollution generated outside the region are
substantially below those of 1992.
4. Regional sanitary sewer service is of high quality, affordable, and available when and where
needed within the urban service area. All residual materials from wastewater treatment
plants are put to beneficial uses.
5. The region has reduced the per capita amounts and toxicity of waste generated compared
with 1992 conditions. Reuse and recycling are at the highest level that is technologically
achievable and economically feasible. There is little Iandfiiling of wastes. There are no
more major pollution sites to be cleaned up, and all previously contaminated sites have been
put back into beneficial uses.
6. The region attains or exceeds all federal and state ambient air quality standards.
7. The physical development pattern of the region is directed toward encouraging land use
patterns that reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption, air pollution and negative
effects on the natural environment.
39
8. All decisions about physical development consider all the direct and indirect impacts of
development or siting of facilities, such as noise, visual impacts, land use conflicts, traffic and
congestion, environmental disruption and consequences for the social fabric of
neighborhoods. At the same time, essential facilities for the region are accommodated.
9. The region puts a stop to urban sprawl through provision of an urban service area with a
compact, contiguous development pattern. Densities are high enough to make delivering
services efficient, yet balanced with open space and the natural environment. In the rural
area, productive farm lands and open spaces are preserved and development limited to be
consistent with a rural level of public services.
10. The two downtowns continue to play a major role in the region as viable commercial centers,
with increased emphasis on large- scale, unique facilities and events. Major retail and office
concentrations, such as those around regional shopping centers, are secondary focal points
and hubs of activity. 'These areas are more densely developed than in 1992, offer a wider
variety of goods and services, contain a mix of commercial and residential uses, and are
highly accessiblc via the transportation system. Community and neighborhood centers
continue to provide essential goods and services for nearby residents.
11. The freestanding growth centers are maintained as distinct and separate concentrations of
development.
12. Aging areas have been rehabilitated so they can continue to be viable neighborhoods.
Priority is given to maintaining the existing housing stock and making it useful for the future,
instead of demolishing and replacing it. Supporting infrastructure has been updated or
40
renewed as needed. Maintenance and rehabilitation have focused equally on residential as
well as commercial and industrial components so these areas can continue to provide both
housing and jobs.
13. Regional and local governments make substantial use of a variety of urban design concepts
in developing and redeveloping the urban area. Open spaces and natural features, as well as
the "built" features like transportation facilities and public buildings are used to enhance the
environment. A "sense of place" has been created within the urban fabric through the use of
aesthetics and good design. Historic areas and structures are preserved when new
development and redevelopment occurs. All urban design recognizes that the region is a
"winter city" that functions and is attractive in all four seasons. A healthy "urban forest" Is
being maintained and expanded.
Measures (comparison over time)
Land area in natural resource - related public ownership at all levels
Water quality reports of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Number of violations of pollution discharge permits
River miles that do not meet standards of being "Fishable and swimmable"
Amount of wetland acres filled
Quantity of water used
Percentage of water supply systems meeting state drinking water standards
Quantity of solid waste generated and quantity landf filled
Quantity of hazardous wastes generated
Toxic chemicals release or transferred (millions of pounds per year)
41
v
Number of days per year that air quality standards are violated
Tons of soil Iost (per acre of cropland)
Number of "Super Fund" sites identified and the number cleaned up
Number of petroleum release sites and the number cleaned up
Amount of prime agricultural land lost to development
Acres of land enrolled in Metropolitan Agricultural preserves Program
Acres of land added to the metropolitan urban service area, defined by the Metropolitan Council
Number of jobs by location, downtowns arid suburban activity concentrations
Retail sales and sales tax data
Annual issuance of building permits
Demolition permits
Trip generation/traffic data for highways and transit users
Transit ridership and level of transit service
Average annual energy use (average BTUs per person)
Percentage of urban tree cover
Arts, Culture and Recreational Opportunities
The arts, culture and recreation opportunities available in the region are good indicators of our
high quality of life. Though not necessities - -like shelter, a job, security or transportation, for
example - -these opportunities are nonetheless important. Artistic and cultural experiences
challenge us, stimulate us, excite us and enrich our lives. Our participatory and spectator sports,
outdoor activities, cultural institutions and community events increase the pleasure of living in the
region. They help attract businesses and skilled workers to our area.
42
Some of the major challenges in achieving these goals:
We need to maintain the high level of cultural and recreational opportunities available in the
region today, in light of competing demands for public and private resources.
• We currently do not have the financial resources to implement the regional parks system
currently envisioned. The current estimate is that $300 million will be needed to complete
the development and redevelopment of the system.
• As communities develop, they will be challenged to keep up with the changing recreational
needs of their population, and to establish local park systems early in their development.
• Concerns about access to activities and information will continue to grow as technology
Increases and if dispersed growth patterns continue.
Goals
1. The g
region offers a rich ran ge of cultural opportunities in music, art, dance and theater.
Citizens have more opportunities to take part as active participants as well as to view, watch
and listen.
2. Everyone has access to key information sources, including the information and entertainment
media, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, television or any new media that may develop.
Libraries are more accessible and use the latest technology. All private, public,
governmental agency, school and university libraries are linked electronically.
3. A park system composed of local, regional and state parks provides a wide range of activities.
The regional park system envisioned in 1992 is now completed. Local parks are located
within walking distance of urban residents' homes. A trail system for walking, hiking and
43
ti
biking is in place throughout the region, within walking distance from urban residents'
homes. Park facilities respond to users needs: they provide recreational opportunities for all
residents irrespective of age, income or mobility status.
The region has sufficient athletic fields, golf courses, ice rinks or other recreational facilities
(indoor and outdoor) to meet the standards of the National Recreation and Park
Association. Facilities provide for year -round activities, The number of available activities
and facilities is increasing at least as fast as the population growth rate.
4. The region is home to major professional and collegiate sports, the Minnesota Zoo, State
Fair and major amusement parks.
Lakes and rivers provide many recreational opportunities. People can go boating and game
Fishing in lakes and rivers within the region. Habitat is maintained so that there is access to
hunting opportunities within a day's trip from the region.
S. All major leisure and entertainment facilities in the urban area are accessible by public
transit.
Measures (comparison over time)
Attendance at arts performances
Number of amateur sports participants
Number of participants attending professional sporting events
Percent of homes with telephone service
r
I 44
i
i
Percent of homes with access to cable television
Miles of public recreational trails
Library circulation data
Acres of remaining regional parks to be acquired
Number of public access facilities on lakes and rivers
Park user counts
Attainment of National Recreation and Park Association standards
Appendices
7
45
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework
Staff Report: Background and Issues
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul. Minnesota 55101
612 291 -6359 TDD 2910904
Publication No. 640 -92 -097
Sept. 25, 1992
For more information about this report or about the Council's
process and schedule for the MDIF update, please contact:
Anne Hurlburt, Manager
Comprehensive Planning and Local Assistance, 612 291 -6501
If you would like additional copies of this report, please contact:
Metropolitan Council Data Center
612 291 -8140
Introduction
The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) is the keystone chapter of the
Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council's plan for the orderly and
economic development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Adopted in 1986, the MDIF is
now being revised to reflect current goals for the region's future. The Council intends to
complete the MDIF revision by the end of 1993.
This report summarizes many of the issues that the Council staff believes should be addressed as
the MDIF is revised. It is intended to help frame the Council's discussion of issues affecting the
MDIF.
As part of the revision process, the Council has developed with the help of many organizations
and individuals a set of goals for the region that describe what this region should be and offer its
citizens by the year 2015. These goals, contained in Metro 2015. Vision and Goals, will guide the
policies developed as part of the new MDIF. Articulating the Council's vision for the region in a
revised MDIF is the first step in implementing that vision in all of the planning that the Council
undertakes.
The main reasons for updating the MDIF are:
• The Council's growth management strategy needs to be examined to determine if it is helping
the region achieve the development pattern, physical form and living environment as described
in the Metro 2015 goals.
• The region faces significant issues linked to its development pattern, such as the possibility of
a new major airport and transit and highway needs.
• Growing physical and socioeconomic disparities among the different areas of the region need
to be addressed, along with the role of the Council in dealing with these issues.
• The MDIF's economic criteria for regional investments must be considered in light of the
changing, global economic environment.
• Governments have been challenged to "reinvent" themselves to better meet the challenges of
the coming decade.
• There is more awareness of the relationship of the region's growth to environmental
opportunities and constraints.
• Local and regional long -range planning requires that we look beyond the year -2000 time
frame of the current MDIF to the year 2020.
This report contains three major sections:
• "The Framework's History and Evolution " - -a brief background on the creation of the Council
and the first Metropolitan Development Framework.
• "Existing MDIF Policy Concepts " - -a summary of the 1986 framework and its basic concepts.
• "Major Issues " - -a summary of major issues for the MDIF revision.
The report will be used by the Metropolitan Council to guide and promote its discussion of issues,
as well as encourage discussion and comment from other groups and individuals in the MDIF
revision process.
•
1
The Framework's History and Evolution
Need for a Development Guide
The original 1967 legislation creating the Metropolitan Council recognized the need for a
comprehensive metropolitan plan (Minn. Stat. 473.145). It called for the Council to prepare a
metropolitan development guide that...
...shall consist of a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, programs, and maps prescribing guides for
an orderly and economic development, public and private, of the metropolitan area. The comprehensive
development guide shall recognize and encompass physical, social, or economic needs of the metropolitan area
and those future developments which will have an impact on the entire area including but not limited to such
matters as land use, parks and open space land needs, the necessity for and location of airports, highways,
transit facilities, public hospitals, libraries, schools and other public buildings.
By the early 1970s, the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide included 11 chapters, each
describing policies, plans and programs for a single functional area. Plans that had been
developed only one or two years apart were based on different population projections, time spans
and development concepts. For example, transit proposals assumed a densely concentrated urban
area, while sewer proposals assumed a low- density scattered pattern of development.
Local plans were also being developed without a regional context to sort out the areas that must
grow from those that would not become growth areas in the foreseeable future. Also, the
Council needed to state clearly beforehand the policies it would apply in its legislatively assigned
review and comment on local plans.
The Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF), adopted in 1975, was intended to provide
central goals or organizing principles for the single- function plans and policies. It also provided
the regional background for local growth management decisions. The philosophy underpinning the
1975 MDF was that:
• It would be a general framework to link regional systems planning and local development.
o Local land use issues were to remain within the control of local governments.
• The framework was to accommodate, not limit, the total amount of development in the
region.
• The framework was to allow market forces to determine the distribution of development
within thearea designated to be served by a full range of regional and local services.
• It would save money. A Council study had documented that the region could save $2 billion
by limiting the size of the urban service area.
Implementation Measures
Following the 1975 adoption of the MDF, the Council embarked on a series of major
implementation efforts, including:
• Passage of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act in 1976, which required all local governments
to prepare plans consistent with regional system plans (sewers, parks, transportation and
airports).
• Implementation of the Land Planning Act through review of local government plans and
school district capital improvement programs.
• Legislation giving the Council authority to review all ublic and private projects of
P P
P 1
metropolitan significance. •
2
An Investment Framework
With the Council's vision of orderly development of the region outlined in the MDF, the Council
began work on the Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF), which was adopted in 1977. The
Council had some authority to guide the capital expenditures of regional agencies to implement
the MDF, but there was a concern about how much the region could afford to spend. How much
regional debt was reasonable? Where would the revenues come from?
The MIF examined the cost and affordability of regional and local investments in infrastructure.
It contained criteria for evaluating regional investments and determining whether the region could
afford them or not. Criteria were used primarily for reviews of regional agency capital budgets
and development programs.
•
3
Existing MDIF Policy Concepts
An Updated Framework
In 1986, the Council updated the MDF and combined it with the MIF to create the Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework. In the MDIF, the Council reaffirmed the basic goals of
the original development framework. However, because of expectations for slower growth, less
funding for infrastructure and an emerging need to update existing infrastructure, the MDIF
placed greater emphasis on managing regional facilities and investment in those facilities, rather
than managing growth as such. When the Council incorporated the Metropolitan Investment
Framework into the MDIF, it broadened the investment framework concepts to emphasize
managing public funds used to maintain or expand regional facilities.
Since the MDIF's adoption, the Council undertook a thorough study of its policies for the rural
area of the region. The basic policy concepts of the original MDF and the 1986 MDIF were
retained but refined and clarified in MDIF amendments that were adopted in 1991.
Key Development Policies
The MDIF retained the following policies from the original framework:
• Direct growth within an urban service area.
The region is divided into urban and rural service areas. Facilities and services needed to
support urban development can be provided at less public cost if land area available for urban
development is defined and reasonably limited in supply. However, market forces, not the
framework, determine the distribution of development within the urban service area; the
Council does not have any policy for limiting growth in one area and promoting it in another.
• Accommodate all trend -based forecasted regional growth.
The Council does not set a limit on total amount of growth in the region. In the developing
areas of the region, new development is supported with regional facilities in line with the
Council's forecasts of population, households and employment. The urban service area is
expanded to provide a large enough supply of land with public services to avoid undue
increases in land prices.
• Give top priority to the two Metro Centers.
The Council gives highest priority for regional investments to maintain two strong metro
centers (the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns). Secondary importance is given to regional
business concentrations (which replaced the MDF concept of "major diversified centers ").
Next in priority is reinvestment for maintenance and replacement of metropolitan systems
serving the fully developed area, with a goal of retaining middle- and upper- income housing
and people in those areas. Last priority is for investments for urban expansion in the
developing area. Outlying communities (freestanding growth centers) are seen as microcosms
of the region as a whole.
4
• _ - ,i'rb
• � r
C�
/.� //. /� % /1��� /IBS! �� ► �
m
PEMBA
o OA
E ld
ld
MIN
r / / /i.
0 14/0 MEMO
, PON
Figure 2
METROPOLITAN URBAN
SERVICE AREA,
T A KA
YEAR 2000
D
ID
Year 2000 MuSA ::
_.:� WAS IF�7QPI
HENNEP N
O
M ea�tpf t ' St Ai3pf
CA VEP 0 -'
. .
P
oa
5 TT Cl •
DAKOTA
❑ ❑
E?
0 10 20 30
Mies
• Support a low level of development outside the urban service area.
The Council's growth management strategy that directs growth within an urban service area
requires a "parallel strategy to limit growth in the rural parts of the region. Limited growth in
the rural area can prevent premature expansion of local and regional services and allows the
region to take advantage of investments already made in the urban service area.
• Preserve agricultural lands.
The Council has long held that the highest and best use for much of the region's land is
agriculture. Good farm land is an important natural resource that, once lost, can never be
reclaimed.
6
• The MDIF gave increased emphasis to the following:
• Maintain existing services and facilities as a number one priority; use existing public
facilities before building new ones.
The potential benefit of this policy is that the region can limit unnecessary investment in
regional facilities. The region has already made a substantial investment in infrastructure
and this investment should not be wasted. In addition, less federal funding has been
available to support facility construction.
• Be proactive in planning for area -wide "unique" facilities.
This policy reasserts the need for the Council to be involved in decisions that determine the .
location for major special facilities. The Council's role is to ensure such decisions are
consistent with regional system plans and to consider the regional need for the facility and
where it might function best. The Council had previously been circumvented in a number of
siting decisions, including those involving the racetrack and world trade center.
• Establish rules for the Council and local units of government to follow when making
changes to their plans.
The rules clearly explain how and when the Council will make changes to regional plans. In
addition, they establish clear procedures for local units to follow in responding to regional
issues and directives. Having these rules or procedures helps avoid misunderstandings and
. leads to predictability of actions.
General Fiscal Guidelines
In the MDIF, the Council incorporated some general fiscal guidelines for Council decisions about
regional investments.
• Plan and set priorities based on regional costs and benefits.
The purpose is to set priorities for regional investments in a comprehensive, region -wide
context. The Council first assesses regional needs, then the costs and benefits of investment
projects. Financing is considered after all these factors so that any available revenues do not
drive the decision about a project and distort regional priorities. For large projects the
Council also evaluates the proposal's impacts on the economy.
• Use economic criteria to evaluate impacts of agency development programs and large private
projects.
The criteria established in this policy (equity, efficiency, use of external funds, use of public
financing mechanisms and use of public revenue sources) simply state some of the factors the
Council thinks are important in making a decision. These criteria are used in reviewing the
service and fiscal implications of implementation plans, major public projects (like light rail
transit) and large private proposals.
7
• Monitor regional investment decisions.
The Council steps back from time to time to look at the investment decisions that have been
made and how they influence the region. The metropolitan investment review report
evaluates regional system investments. The regional fiscal profile tracks the expenditures,
revenues and debt of all governments in the region. Also, a number of economic indicators
were developed to monitor the fiscal health of the region, including metro agency revenues
and debt.
Direction for System Plans
The MDIF includes a process to ensure that the Council's development framework plan is
implemented through the regional systems and that it is done in a cost - effective manner. The
following are the key elements of the process:
• Establish the basic principles and policies for growth that the systems will serve, then
incorporate those principles and policies into individual system plans that give direction to
the regional agencies.
In the MDIF, the Council determines the size, timing, location and priority of the systems
based on its regional forecasts and the boundaries of the metropolitan urban service area.
The policy plans for airports, transportation, sewers and parks are revised to reflect the
MDIF.
Then the agencies responsible for their respective regional system implement the Council's
policies as provided by metropolitan governance statutes:
• Prepare implementation plans, comprehensive plans or capital programs, and adopt agency
capital and operating budgets.
The implementation plans, comprehensive plans or capital programs of the metropolitan
agencies must be consistent with the Council's policy plan for the system. The budgets of the
metropolitan agencies carry out their plans and programs.
8
Major Issues
The major issues to be addressed in the update of the MDIF can be categorized into five major
themes:
• Regional growth management strategy
• The environment
• Economic development strategy
• Regional governance
• Implementation of the MDIF
These issues are drawn from many sources. Many of the issues were identified during public
discussion of Metro 2015: Vision and Goals as central to developing a strategy for achieving the
Council's vision of what the region can and should be in the future. Discussion of these issues
will continue the debate begun during the visioning process.
Some of the issues were identified by the Council during the 1986 revision of the MDIF and have
not yet been addressed, or issues the Council indicated at that time would be addressed in
subsequent revisions. Brainstorming sessions with Council members and staff, and Council
reviews of local comprehensive plan amendments were also used to identify issues. Some of the
issues have been identified as other Council plans have been developed (including the Council's
recent water - related planning efforts, transit facilities and airports planning). Others have been
raised by other governmental bodies; for example, the Minnesota Legislature has directed the
Metropolitan Council to study the effect of the region's development patterns on the fully
developed area.
The issues do not exist in a vacuum. How the region has grown and changed over time and the
demographic and development patterns that exist today provide the context for understanding and
responding to these issues. Consequently, as the Council begins to collect data and analyze key
issues, it will also consider and analyze the following contexts: historic development patterns and
land use, regional economic development patterns, housing; infrastructure and governmental
boundaries.
This report does not provide answers to the issues outlined here; most are complex and
interrelated. No attempt has been made to set priorities. That will be done as the issues are
discussed by the Council and its stakeholders. Although the Metropolitan Council may not be
able to fully address every issue in the MDIF update, most of them will receive extensive
discussion and consideration as new policies are developed.
Regional Growth Management Strategy
The issues grouped under the category of growth management are broad and encompass the land
use, physical development and infrastructure needs of the region. They also include "people"
issues that are related to the geographic distribution of jobs and the aging infrastructure and
housing stock.
The Urban Service Area: The Concept in Practice
The Council determines the boundary of the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) based on ,
based on its forecasts, guidelines contained in the MDIF and market demand. The MDIF enables
9
the Council to generally coordinate the timing of development with the capacity of the sewer and
highway systems. However, the MDIF does not restrain the total amount of growth in the region.
Nor does it set development densities at the urbanizing fringe. The private market, not the
MDIF, determines the specific timing and direction of growth within the MUSA.
The MUSA provides a sufficient amount of land to accommodate development to the year 2000,
plus a five -year 'overage." This policy is to avoid unduly restricting the supply of developable land
and driving up its cost. However, in some areas the MUSA may now be out of scale with the real
needs for urban land. More serviced land is available for urbanization than can reasonably be
developed in the next several decades. In addition, very low- density development is occurring at
the fringe of the MUSA.
When land is added to the MUSA, the local government and the region make a commitment to
providing the full range of services needed for urban development. An oversized urban service
area results in excess service investments and insufficient households and jobs to pay the taxes and
fees needed to retire the proportionally higher costs of these services. There is little incentive to
stage development within the MUSA, making it difficult to program local and regional
infrastructure investments. Moreover, the way the MUSA concept has been carried out may have
provided a disincentive for infill and redevelopment in the central cities and first -ring suburbs.
Many of the Metro 2015 goals would encourage greater density and a more compact urban form.
Development would be oriented along transportation corridors with concentrated nodes of higher -
density land uses, including connections to residential areas.
• Does the Council want to continue the growth management concept of expanding the region's .
urban area as needed to accommodate development based on low- density market trends? Or
does the Council want to be more directive in its policies to create a more compact urban
form, as suggested by the Metro 2015 goals?
• How large can the MUSA be and still promote "orderly and economic" development and the
reasonable extension of local and regional services?
• Should the Council continue to agree to outward urban expansion, or is there an ultimate
outer limit to the urban service area?
• The 1990 average density, slightly under two single-family units per acre in developing
communities, is too low to efficiently provide some urban services (such as transit) and works
against achieving economies of scale for other services (such as sewers). Should the form of
the urban area be more compact and have a higher density? If so, how should density be
increased and by how much?
• Can transportation corridors (transit and highways) be used to a greater extent to focus
development?
10
Distribution of Development
Historically the western half of the region has experienced substantially more growth in
population, number of households and jobs than the eastern half. The disparity in the amount of
growth between the northern and southern halves of the region has been much less, but is
expected to increase somewhat in favor of the south in future years.
• Is the difference in the amount of development between various parts of the region a question
of "equity" or "balance" that warrants directing growth to one side of the region or another?
What would it take to achieve such equity or balance, and what would be the advantages
and disadvantages of doing so?
• Have the Council's policies or investment decisions contributed to the disparities in the
amount of development?
• Should regional systems be expanded in one area to serve development when capacity may be
available elsewhere in the region? Is it more efficient or cheaper to serve development in one
area of the region than another?
The Housing/jobs Link
Residential land use is dominated by very low- density single - family housing in many parts of the
region. Two - thirds of jobs are located in Minneapolis, the west and southwest. A growing
number of service jobs are located along the outlying beltway system. The low- density area with
strong concentrations of jobs to the west is highly dependent on the automobile. Low- density
land use is difficult and costly to serve with transit. Many workers and prospective workers,
particularly those with low incomes, live a long distance from jobs.
• Can the region's growth management strategy help move people closer to their jobs, or move
jobs closer to people?
• How can we plan for a better relationship between place of work and place of residence,
when people are changing jobs more often and many households have more than one full-
time worker?
• How can available jobs, affordable housing and people with low incomes be matched up? Is
this a regional responsibility?
Reassessing Roles and Definitions of the Geographic Policy Areas
The Council divides the region into two main geographic policy areas with corresponding
development'and investment policies - -the urban service area and the rural service area. Because
the Council revised its policies for the rural service area and adopted MDIF amendments in 1991,
the upcoming revision of the MDIF will focus on the policies areas within the urban service area.
The urban policy areas vary in their density and diversity of development, their accessibility within
the urban area, and the variety and level of services they afford. The policy areas are:
O The metro centers -- downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul.
11
• The regional business concentrations -- clusters of economic development, like shopping
malls and office centers along major highways.
• The fully developed area - -the older, built -up portion of the region.
• The developing area - -the growing communities within the urban service area.
• Freestanding growth centers -- medium -sized cities in the rural part of the region that
function as detached parts of the urban service area.
With the process for revising the MDIF under way, it is timely to consider whether these
definitions are still appropriate, or if designations need to be changed to respond to changing
development patterns and policy objectives.
• Are the criteria defining the current geographic policy areas the most useful way to describe
areas of similar physical and socioeconomic characteristics, or should demographics and
other factors play a greater role in defining such areas?
• Have too many of freestanding growth centers been "swallowed up" in the MUSA to maintain
them as distinct policy areas, despite the Metro 2015 goal of retaining them? If a green belt
is established encircling the urban area, should it be maintained between the urban area and
the freestanding growth centers to maintain their identity?
In the last decade, the metro centers have experienced extensive commercial redevelopment and
revitalization. At the same time, this development has substantially increased the amount of
traffic in the downtowns. The Metro 2015 goals envision that the two downtowns will remain
viable commercial centers. The goals also envision higher- density major retail and office
concentrations, with a mix of residential and commercial uses, in areas highly accessible via the
transportation system.
• Is the role of the two metro centers changing? What infrastructure is needed (such as
transportation improvements) to accommodate more development? Are there any negative
impacts to continued concentration of development in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul?
• Should the concept of the metro centers be limited to downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul?
What about the "Edge City" along I -494? Are there any other development concentrations
around the region that should be designated "metro centers "? How can we plan for these
areas? What are their boundaries?
• What will it take to transform existing regional business concentrations into the Metro 2015
vision for these areas? Should the MDIF identify emerging business concentrations?
Priorities for Policy Areas
The Council's categories of policy areas provide a basis for setting priorities for regional
investments to maintain, replace or build new regional systems. Maintaining regional systems
serving the metro centers and the regional business concentrations have the highest and second -
highest priorities, respectively. Also, reinvestment in regional systems in the fully developed area
12
has priority over investment in facilities for expansion in the developing area. In addition,
preserving agriculture in the region is a key priority.
• Is it important to keep these priorities? Have they made a difference? Or will market forces
determine the success of these policy areas regardless of Council policies on regional
infrastructure decisions?
• Should the priorities be broadened to include more than just regional systems? Should the
Council more actively encourage other public and private investment and reinvestment in
high priority areas?
• How do we determine geographic priorities for 'linear" development that crosses boundaries
of the existing policy areas--for example, development along major highways that extend from
the metro centers through the fully developed area to the developing area?
Disparities Between the Fully Developed Area and Developing Suburbs
A major objective of MDIF policies was to preserve and strengthen the social and economic
health of the fully developed area. However, the past decade has seen a widening disparity
between the central cities and first -ring suburbs, on one hand, and the newer, second- and third -
ring developing communities, on the other.
These disparities are rooted in an aging population and infrastructure in older communities aloe
P g gP P g
• with pockets of severe poverty, slower job growth than in the newer suburbs, and the shifting of
the economy from a manufacturing to a service base. Conversely, the developing suburbs
continue to experience residential, commercial and industrial growth. Many of them are
benefiting from new job creation and tax -base expansion. At the same time, however, many
growing communities are paying for public infrastructure like roads, sewers and schools to support
their new development.
The Council's Metro 2015 goals envision a Metropolitan Area where these emerging disparities,
both social and economic, have been recognized and addressed. The goals describe a strong,
successful Metropolitan Area with a greatly improved livability, especially in the mature portions
of the region.
• How should the Council address the disparities between the fully developed area and the
developing portions of the region?
• Does the continued expansion of the developing area divert resources and investment away
from- -and to the detriment of - - the fully developed area? Can we continue the present low -
density development pattern on the edge of the region, and still hope to encourage
development and redevelopment in older areas?
The MDIF emphasizes working through the four regional systems to carry out regional policies.
However, the preservation and improvement of the fully developed area will likely require dealing
with a broad approach that includes human service and investment issues. -
• How can the Council use the MDIF and its authority over regional systems (sewers, roads,
parks and airports) to affect social problems? How can social and human investment
considerations be more fully integrated into the MDIF?
13
• Should the Council do more to strengthen the fully developed area than merely supporting
reinvestment in the regional facilities serving the area? How can the Council be more active
in encouraging redevelopment and reinvestment?
• How can the MDIF be more creative in dealing with the problems of the fully developed
area, articularl the central cities? Should the Council consider what P Y contributes to the
vitality of neighborhoods and foster strategies to strengthen them?
• How important are regional tax and fiscal policies to dealing with the impacts of these
disparities? To what extent does the fiscal disparities law address the problem?
A Possible New Major Airport
The Council is participating in a planning process to determine how best to meet the region's
future airport capacity needs -- whether the region should expand the current major airport or
build a new one in Dakota County. The airport is a major employer and generates a great deal
of highway traffic. In addition, over time, a new airport would produce a significant amount of
spin -off development.
• What would the relocation of the region's major airport do to Council efforts to manage or
direct growth within the region? What approach should the MDIF take in managing the
growth spawned by a new airport? What direction can the MDIF give that will help in
making a decision?
If a new airport is built, the existing airport site will need to be put to some other use. The
existing airport site may have some things in common with other large sites within the urban area
that may be difficult to redevelop because they are polluted or because of other factors, such as
the FMC /Arm Arsenal site 2
FMC/Army n Arden Hills.
• Are there regionally significant redevelopment sites besides the airport that should be
recognized by MDIF policy? How should decisions about their reuse and redevelopment be
made?
The "NIMBY" Phenomenon
The "NIMBY" ( "not in my back yard ") phenomenon makes it almost impossible to site any land
use that
is deemed undesirable by a potential host community. Often, NIMBYs can be social
service facilities like a group home or a correctional center; they are not just landfills, highways or
airports.
• What incentives might the Council consider to encourage communities to accept land uses
and facilities that are considered undesirable?
The Environment
Environmental Features as Development Shapers
In general, the region has too often looked at its environmental resources as an impediment to
economic development rather than as a positive economic benefit that can return a value to the
region. While it is true that some of those resources have been preserved for future generations
14
(the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes is a good example), it is also true that, in many cases, the
region's stewardship of its resources has not been so exemplary. Development needs to be
designed in a way that makes environmental features a valuable and integrated part of the
development and makes their natural functions an asset to the project.
In addition, the link between local governments' development policies and the environment is
critical. Most local comprehensive plans, however, focus on the location of development and
supporting infrastructure and rarely on the relationship of the project to the environment.
Environmental issues are often not addressed until after a project has been reviewed, when there
are often no alternatives available or the developer is not willing to redesign the project.
• Should the Council take the lead in promoting the benefits of using the environment to shape
and give identity to development within the region? Could the Council develop urban design
principles that address how communities could better integrate area rivers, lakes, streams,
wetlands, bluffs and other natural features into development in the region?
• Should the Council lead in pushing for comprehensive plans that call for development to be
designed with environmental resources as an integral feature?
• Would the Council need additional authority to carry out this kind of a change in direction?
Water Quality and Quantity
In the last year, the Council has focused substantial attention on the issue of nonpoint- source
pollution of the Minnesota River and is now looking at this issue as it affects other rivers in the
region. The protection of wetlands has also emerged as a significant issue at the state and federal
level. The Council has already adopted policies calling for the protection of all wetlands.
• How will the region's development pattern be affected by the need to address nonpoint
pollution of the region's rivers and lakes and the need to protect wetlands?
Stringent federal water quality standards could potentially affect the availability of central sewer
service to support additional growth in the future. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
(MWCC) is currently studying how decentralizing or centralizing treatment plant operations could
offer ways of expanding sewer capacity while improving or maintaining water quality.
• How will the results of the MWCC's study on centralization and decentralization affect
prospects for future growth in certain areas of the region?
Water supply enters into the discussion as well. Developing suburbs in the north and northwest
are already growing beyond the limits of the Prairie du Chien- Jordan aquifer. Several
communities are already pumping water out of the glacial drift, which has a great potential for
contamination because of its shallow depth.
The Mississippi River offers a primary alternative water source. However, there's an increased
potential for chemical and other spills into the river because of growing rail and truck traffic and
15
from petroleum pipeline flows. In addition, low flows in the river during dry periods raise serious
doubts that future development should rely on the Mississippi as a primary water source.
• Should water supplies be considered in the region's development policy? Should urban
development continue in areas that lack the necessary water supplies? Or could alternative
supplies of water be identified to serve these areas? At what cost?
Air Quality and Energy
Growing highway traffic and congestion over the past two decades have seriously reduced air
quality in many portions of the region, while increasing the amount of energy consumed in the
form of fossil fuels.
• How can the Council alter current development patterns and travel behavior, particularly the
use of single- occupant vehicles, to minimize air quality problems and reduce energy
consumption?
• Should the Council look at the air quality question in the larger arena of global warming and
consider whether this region can take positive steps to help reduce the effects of global
warming?
Economic Development Strategy
The Council's Metro 2015 goals emphasize the importance of a strong, competitive economy.
There are a number of issues related to government's role in the economy that can be examined
in the MDIF update.
• What is the appropriate role of the Council with respect to the private sector? Specifically,
how does the Council want to interact with the private sector -- control growth, direct growth,
make things happen or let things happen? Should the Council - -in conjunction with cities,
counties and the private sector -- develop a coordinated regional economic development
strategy?
• What kind of economic growth should the region be seeking?
• How can government contribute to or encourage a strong, dynamic private sector?
Investment Policies
The Council's current investment policies and economic evaluation criteria are designed to be
used in reviewing public investments, like the implementation plans of the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission and major regional projects like the Mall of America or the Target Center
basketball arena. The purpose for the policies and criteria is to have the Council evaluate, from
an econom'
is ers ective the value
p p of the projects to the region and then to use that
information as it reviews, comments or makes decisions that may be necessary.
• How effective have the investment policies and economic evaluation criteria been in helping
the Council implement its plans?
16
Public Subsidies for Projects
Council policies discourage the use of public subsidies such as tax - increment financing) for major
( g) or J
private projects that will compete with other public or private facilities. The issue is not simple,
however. Almost no projects are undertaken without some public subsidy, so the question
becomes a matter of what amount of public subsidy is appropriate and who provides it.
In the case of the Mall of America, the Council said Bloomington could proceed with the project
but that there should be no state or regional public subsidy because the benefits accrued primarily
to the city and not to the region or state as a whole. In its visioning discussion, the Council
expressed the need to take a hard look at all public subsidies and how they are used.
r
• Under what conditions is public subsidy of private projects appropriate? How much subsidy
is appropriate, and from what level of government?
The way the region, the state and the federal government finance public improvements may
subsidize certain areas of the region. State and federal tax policies also provide subsidies for
certain areas.
• How extensive are these subsidies, and whom do they favor? Are they consistent with
Council priorities? Is this an issue the MDIF should try to address?
Local/Regional Cost - Sharing
The MDIF's cost - sharing policy is designed to allow local governments to request a change in
regional plans (timing, sizing, location of facilities) by paying for the change themselves. This is a
difficult policy to use because it can subvert regional goals by changing priorities established in a
long -range plan. On the other hand, it can add needed revenues to regional capital programs if
local officials believe a project is worth the money.
• Do the regional benefits of the cost - sharing option warrant continuing this policy?
Special Regional Facilities
These are large, often one -of -a -kind projects with a specific function or focus, such as sports or
international trade. The Council intends to look both at the impact on regional systems such
facilities may have, and consider the regional need and the best location for them.
For a number of past decisions on such facilities, the Council was not asked to discuss the issues .
of need or location in a significant way. The Council has since reasserted its intention to be
involved in resolving these issues.
• What is the best way for the Council to play a role in determining need and location of
special regional facilities, along with its traditional role of assessing regional system impacts?
Regional Governance
The major governance challenge facing the Council is to reassert itself as the region's leader on
critical issues facing the region. That challenge requires that the Council identify issues and act as
a catalyst for action to be taken at the appropriate level to resolve the issues. At the same time,
17
a regional leadership role must recognize the need for public participation in the process of
identifying issues and solutions. The Council needs to be able to recognize when regional
leadership requires moving forward without a consensus on an issue and then rallying support for
the Council's position.
• Can the Council use the MDIF revision to demonstrate its leadership and define its role on
regional issues?
With the potential for slow economic growth and public reluctance to pay more taxes, there are
going to be fewer government revenues available to provide public services. At the same time,
the number and structure of governmental units has changed very little in the 25 years since the
Minnesota Legislature recognized the need to have a Metropolitan Council plan and coordinate
the growth and development of the region. Opportunities exist to cooperate more, consolidate
and contract with others to perform services to save public funds.
The Council's vision of governance for the future includes a desire that government be "close to
the people." On the other hand, to be more efficient and economical, some governmental
functions may require more centralization. The current MDIF provides little guidance in
addressing the changing foundations of governance.
• Can the Council develop governance principles in the revised MDIF that will foster the
creation of more effective and accountable governmental institutions?
• To what extent should the MDIF deal with restructuring and reorganizing government to
make it work better and to meet the needs of the region in the future? Should the MDIF lay
the groundwork for a more proactive Metropolitan Council role in local government
annexations or consolidations?
• Are corresponding changes in the tax structure also needed? For example, should fiscal
disparities be changed or expanded?
• What is the relationship of the seven -county Metropolitan Area to the rest of the state? Does
the need for planning and coordination extend beyond our current boundaries?
• What demands or needs for government services can be predicted and how is government, at
whatever level, going to meet those demands?
Implementation of the MDIF
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act
The Land Planning Act is a decade and half old, and, although it has been amended since it was
passed, its basic provisions are still intact. The act requires local communities to prepare
comprehensive plans that reflect the Council's regional systems plans. Communities must review
their plans when the Council informs them of changes in the metropolitan systems plans (sewers,
transportation, airports and parks), and then make amendments if necessary. They must also
submit plan amendments to the Council for review if they update their plans, but there is no
mechanism to ensure that this occurs. Nor does the Land Planning Act require communities to
update their comprehensive plans on a regular basis.
18
The Council can require a local governmental unit to modify a comprehensive plan or amendment
submitted for review if it would have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure
from metropolitan system plans. At one time or another, there have been suggestions to make
housing, solid waste or water supply regional systems to strengthen the link between regional
policy and local implementation efforts.
• Is there a need for the legislature to designate additional metropolitan systems, or redefine the
existing metropolitan systems?
• Will the Council need to seek changes to the Land Planning Act to help implement the
revised MDIF? Has the Council used the full extent of its existing authority under the act?
• Are the content requirements for local comprehensive plans still adequate? Do all local
plans meet the required plan contents? Is there a need to add new plan elements?
• Is there a need to g the or maintaining refocus the law so it is a better vehicle for
regional
comprehensive planning process? Should the law require periodic revision of local
comprehensive plans?
Linking Comprehensive Plans and Zoning
Once the Council has approved a local community's comprehensive plan, the community is then
supposed to enact zoning regulations and other official controls to carry out its plan. However,
the plans of some communities are still not consistent with their respective official land use
controls, including zoning ordinances. It means that local development may not fully reflect
MDIF and other Council policies.
• Should the process for reviewing local comprehensive plans and amendments be changed to
ensure greater consistency between regional and local plans, and between local plans and
zoning?
Metropolitan Significance
Under state law, the Council can use its "metropolitan significance" criteria and procedures to
determine the impacts of development proposals and respond accordingly. To be of metro
significance, a project must have a major impact on regional sewer, transportation, airport or park
systems. Or the project must have a "substantial effect" on an existing or planned land use of
another local government.
The Council can 1) decide the project is of metropolitan significance and take no further action,
2) decide to amend regional system plans to accommodate the project, or 3) suspend the project
up to one year or until changes are made in the project.
To date, the Council has used the review nine times to help differing communities agree on
changes in development projects that satisfy both parties. The Council has never used the one -
year suspension authority, however.
• What is the role of the metropolitan significance process in implementing Council policies
and mediating land use issues between local governments?
19
{
Other Implementation Issues
The state legislation that created the Council contained broad language authorizing the Council
to plan for the orderly and economic development of the region. Implementation authority,
however, was not specifically provided for all the areas for which the Council was authorized to
plan - -for example, schools, hospitals, libraries and other public buildings. The Metro 2015 goals
imply that regional planning and leadership may be needed for a wider range of issues (such as
telecommunications), which in turn may require additional authority.
• Should the Council use its legislative authorization to plan for a broad range of public
facilities by seeking authority to implement plans for such facilities? Or should the Council
continue its current, narrower focus to be effective in achieving its vision for the region?
In addition to its authority under the Land Planning Act, the Council has some control over
public - facility decisions and other authority to review and influence decisions that affect land use
and development.
• How can Council authority in other areas, such as approval of highway interchanges, be
better integrated with planning by the Council and local governments under the authority of
the Land Planning Act?
• How can the Council better use its regional system plans and its oversight of the regional
agencies to implement MDIF policies?
• What influence does the Council have to implement its policies through advisory review of
agency permits, environmental reviews, housing proposals and elements of local plans not
related to regional systems?
MDIFS.DFT
i
20
NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION
October 7, 1992
Mr. James Krautkremer
Metro Council Member
6425 Shingle Creek Drive
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
Dear Mr. Krautkremer:
Last month, I had the occasion to testify before the Council on behalf of the North Metro Mayors
Association regarding the Metro 2015 Vision and Goal draft document. I had hoped that our
comments and suggestions would have been included. Unfortunately, the revised draft dated
September 25th, 1992, fails to incorporate our recommendations in many significant and
substantive areas.
For purposes of creating a record of our concerns, the following comments are restated for your
consideration. I respectfully request that you share these comments and concerns with your
colleagues and staff designated to prepare this document for Council consideration.
Our concerns remain that the most recent draft does not properly address:
1. the subject of balanced growth in the metropolitan area,
2. the subject of housing, social and human service needs adequately, and
3. the health and well -being of the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul as a vital regional
issue.
Further, our organization respectfully requested the Council to consider delaying its adoption until
these critical issues were addressed in a broader context and involving a far greater constituency
then has been approached to date.
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, SUITE 5, BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443
TELEPHONE 612- 493 -5115 FAX 612- 424 -1174
Our organization remains opposed to the g pp adoption of the revised draft Metro Vision and Goal
statement unless the following issues are revisited, changed and made to the document:
1. Any long -range planning documents must address the questions of growing disparities
within the region and target balanced growth as an overall objective for the metropolitan
area.
2. If work on the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework proceed, it should
not be encumbered retroactively by the premature adoption of Metro 2015. Prior to the
adoption, all issues raised should be resolved through an in -depth process of public input
and discussion.
3. The economic and social stability of the core cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) must be
identified as a principle goal and inextricably linked to achieving a high quality standard
of living for all citizens of the metropolitan region. Anything short of this will result in
our region slipping backwards. This is a fundamental proposition. It can not and should
not be ignored by those who are fashioning a "vision" for our region's future. The facts
are there for all too see. Please take time to visit the information prepared by
Representative Myron Orfield on the subject "Urban Stability." The core cities and many
of the inner first, second and even third ring suburbs are experiencing common
problematic symptoms. Being poor and without resources is no longer just a localized
issue. It is endemic and spreading in the opposite direction from development and
growth. We must address these problems in a systematic manner. One place to start is
to recognize the existence of these problems in the "Vision Statement" for 2015.
To date, we have heard that the Metropolitan Council wants our thoughts and suggestions. We
hear that you want our communities to be full partners in the adoption of this "visioning"
statement. If this is truly the case, then we suggest the process be opened up, the adoption
delayed, and that a broad based public dialogue be initiated before final adoption.
The issues at stake are crucial to the future success of our region. Not only in the global
markets where competition is the catch phrase, but in the social and human fabric of our
communities. This is where we must turn our attention - focus our limited resources at the
basics, the building blocks for success for all of our citizens in the metropolitan area. The issues
that we have identified are ones of fairness, equity and equality. Balanced growth, housing,
social and human needs proper focus on the core existence of our region and need to be added
to those other key components of the Metro 2015.
It is not our organization's goal to function only as critics in this important r
g g y p process. We
recognize the complexity of the task you have undertaken and want to be a part, not only of
shaping the vision, but also of working with you to make it a reality. We hope you will accept
our comments in that spirit and that you will allow for accommodation of the concerns we have
raised.
Sincerely,
E1wvn Tinklenberg '
President
North Metro Mayors Association
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Co mcil Meeting Date October 13.1992
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION GIVING HOST APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF HEALTH CARE
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1992 (GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. PROJECT)
DEPT. APPROVAL:
� n
Brad G. Hoffman, A Coordinator
MANAGER'S REVIEWlRECONEMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
• SL1�vIMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
(SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
Member introduced the following resolution and moved /
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING HOST APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF HEALTH CARE
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1992 (GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. PROJECT)
WHEREAS, Group Health Plan, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
( "Group Health "), currently operates facilities located at 5901 John Martin Drive
and 6845 Lee Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center (the "Local
Facilities ").
WHEREAS, Group Health has proposed that the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, and the City of Minneapolis,
Minnesota, jointly issue Health Care Revenue Bonds in the approximate principal
amount of $70,000,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance or refinance various capital
expenditures made by Group Health in approximately 18 cities located through the
State of Minnesota, including the Local Facilities.
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, requires that each municipality in which facilities to be financed or
refinanced by the Bonds are located must approve the issuance of the Bonds
following a public hearing.
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds was held by
the City of Minneapolis and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City
of St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 8, 1992, and September 22, 1992,
respectively.
WHEREAS, the Bonds are payable solely from revenues of Group Health,
will not be a general or moral obligation of the City of Brooklyn Center, the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Paul, the City of
Minneapolis or any other political subdivision but will be payable solely from
revenue of Group Health to the extent and in the manner provided in the documents
executed in connection with the issuance of the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the city hereby gives the host approval required under the
Internal Revenue Code to the Issuance of the Bonds.
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 OFFICES
BRIGGS AND MORGAN !
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION :-✓
R Ls
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
s
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE (012) 223 -0900
FACSIMILE (012) 223 -9450
MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE
September 28, 1992 2400 IDS CENTER
WRITEAIS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (012) 334 -8400
FACSIMILE (812) 334 -8850
(612) 223 -6625
Mr. Gerald Splinter
City Manager
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Joint Issuance by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Saint Paul and the City of Minneapolis - $70,000,000 Health Care Revenue
Bonds, Series 1992 (Group Health Plan, Inc. Project)
Dear Mr. Splinter:
Enclosed is the resolution which I discussed with you in our telephone
conversation. The resolution gives "host approval" to the above referenced bonds
which are being jointly issued by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
the City of Saint Paul and the City of Minneapolis.
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code requires "host approval" from
each municipality in which a facility, which is to be financed or refinanced by the
revenue bonds, is located. The facility that is located in your municipality is the
Brooklyn Center Dental Clinic and the Brooklyn Center Medical Clinic located at
5901 John Martin Drive and 6845 Lee Avenue North. It is anticipated that
approximately $1,434,000 of the proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance or
refinance costs for this facility.
As indicated in the enclosed resolution, the bonds are payable solely from
revenues of Group Health and are not general obligations, or payable from any
revenues of your City, or any other political subdivision. In addition, no portion
of the bonds will count against your City's $5,000,000 "small issuer" rebate
exception.
I would appreciate if the enclosed resolution is placed on the agenda for
the City Council meeting on October 13, 1992. If you would like a representative
of Group Health or our office to be present at that meeting, please let me know.
BRIGGS Axn MORGAN
Mr. Gerald Splinter
September 28, 1992
Page Two
Someone from our office will contact you following the Council meeting to
find out if the resolution was adopted, and to arrange to obtain an executed copy
of the resolution.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
V ry truly yours,
Mary M. yrseth
MMD:mw
Enc.
cc: Ms. Barbara Portwood
Holmes & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/13/92
• Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE II,
CONTRACT 1992 -B
DEPT. APPROVAL:
r
Sy Kna , Director of Public Works
MANAGER'S RE
VIEW /RECOMMENDATI
ON:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
• The City Council, by Resolution No. 92 -80, authorized Contract 1992 -B, 69th
Avenue North Reconstruction, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10. The consultant for
this project, SEH, Inc., has reported to staff a list of items or quantities of
work which were beyond the scope of the original contract, as previously
approved. The following items represent work authorized by the City and agreed
on by the Contractor which is outside of the original contract:
Item 1
Lower Catch Basin Lead At France Ave. $ 920.00
The existing watermain in 69th Ave. was much shallower than
anticipated, which created a vertical conflict with the proposed
storm sewer. Accordingly, additional material and labor was required
to connect storm sewer to an existing manhole.
Item 2
Construct Sanitary Sewer Service to North Star Dodge $ 6,137.00
At the time the construction plans for this project were developed,
the sanitary sewer service to North Star Dodge was assumed to connect
to the sower main in Brooklyn Blvd; subsequent investigation revealed
that the service connected to the sewer in 69th Ave. which was being
replaced. The contractor controlled traffic, constructed a manhole
and extended a new service from 69th Ave. on a time and materials
basis.
• Item 3
Install New Corporations at Leaking Water Services $ 367.50
- During construction, it was discovered that the two water services
for 4001 and 4101 69th Ave. were leaking at the main. The contractor
submitted an invoice for labor only; the City provided the new
corporations.
Item 4
Locate and Connect to Sewer Service at 4101 -69th Ave. $ 1,207.50
- It was discovered during construction that this address has two sewer
services. The first service was located and connected as indicated
in the plans, but after the property owner noted difficulty with
plumbing, another service was discovered at a lower elevation. City
records didn't indicate the existence of this second service, nor did
the property owners have any knowledge of it. This additional cost
is for the extra labor and materials supplied by the contractor to
connect this second service to the main.
Item 5
Add Emergency Vehicle Preemption Device Cable (EVP) $ 815.10
• - This item was added to the signal system at the France /69th Ave.
intersection at the request of the Public Works Department.
Item 6
Extend Storm Sewer to Low Area $ 3,600.00
- The grading that was necessary to establish the berming on the north
side of 69th Ave, just west of West Palmer Lake Drive, created a low
area which could contribute to drainage problems in the adjacent
residential lots. This cost is the extra labor and materials to be
supplied by the contractor for the construction of this outlet.
Item 7
Substitute MegaLugs for Retaining Rods $ 589.27
- During construction, Public Utility personnel requested that MegaLug
fittings be used for joint restraint on the ductile iron pipe water
main rather than the retaining rods which were originally specified.
Recent experience on City projects has indicated that MegaLugs
provide a higher level of protection with regard to joint failures in
ductile iron pipe.
' • Item 8
Credit for Luminaire and Shaft Extension $ (150.00)
It was determined in the field that the overhead power lines on
Brooklyn Blvd. conflicted with the proposed luminaire located on the
new signal in the northeast corner of the intersection. This credit
is for deleting the luminaire and shaft extension, reduced for the
cost of a cover cap and restocking charge.
Item 9
Extend Contract Time No Cost
- The contractor has requested a contract time extension amounting to
final completion of November 15 of this year. His cited reasons
which include inclement weather, project delays caused by NSP,
Minnegasco, US West and Cable TV, and increased utility work.
Total Value of Change Order No. 3 $ 13 486.37
The contractor has agreed to do this work based on unit prices which are
established for similar work on the project. The consultant (SEH Inc.) and City
staff agree that these unit prices are fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the
i total value of work embraced b Change Order 6
Y g
No. 3 is $ 13,48 .37. Staff
estimates that $ 7,344.50 of that total be aid for from the Public Utility Sewer
P Y
Fund, $ 956.77 be paid for from the Public Utility Water Fund, $ 4,520.00 be paid
for r from the Public Utility torm Drainage Fund and the remaining Y g � g $ 665.10 be
paid for from the Local State Aid Fund No. 2911. A copy of the proposed change
order is attached for reference.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution approving the proposed Change Order is provided for consideration.
•
i
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO 69TH AVENUE
RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE II, CONTRACT 1992 -B
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center previously entered into Contract
1992 -B with S.M. Hentges & Sons for the construction of Improvement Project
No. 1990 -10; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that certain additional
items and /or quantities of work should be added to the existing contract; and
WHEREAS, the contractor, S.M. Hentges & Sons has agreed to the prices
and quantities for said additional work; and
WHEREAS, the value of this additional work is estimated as
$13,486.37.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. Change Order No. 3, Contract 1992 -B is hereby approved.
2. The additional costs attributable to this change order shall be
financed as follows:
Estimated Cost
Public Utility Storm Drainage Fund $ 4,520.00
Public Utility Sewer Fund $ 7,344.50
Public Utility Water Fund $ 956.77
Local MSA Fund No. 2911 $ 665.10
Total $13,486.37
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.
® CHANGE ORDER
ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS N PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST. PAUL, MN 55110 -5108 612490-2000 800325-2055
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 5, 1992
OWNER DATE
S.A.P. 109 - 125 -06, CITY PROJECT 1990 -10, CONTRACT NO. 1992 -B 3
OWNERS PROJECT NO. CHANGE ORDER NO.
69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION 90277.02
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEH FILE NO.
The following changes shall be made to the contract documents
Description: See Attached
Purpose of Change Order:
See Attached
* Basis of Cost: [K Actual El Estimated
(See Attached Cost summary)
Attachments (list supporting documents)
Change Order Requests from Contractor
Letter from engineer
Time Cost
Contract Status Substantial Final
Oct. 9 / Oct. 23 $1,499,942.80
Original Contract
Net Change Prior C.O.'s 1 to 2
1 24,942.47
Change This C.O. Nov. 1 / Nov. 15 13,486.37
Revised Contract Nov. 1 / N ov. 15 $1,538,371.64
Recommended for Approval: SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. By ��� W wtd
Sus". Mason, P.E.
Agreed to by Contractor: S.M. Ilentges & Sons Approved for Owner: City of Brooklyn Center
B Ty
-
TITLE TITLE
Distribution Contractor 2 Owner 1 Project Representative 1 SEH Office 1
SHORT E! 1.IOTT
HENDHICKSON INC ;;T CLOUD. AIN CI110It WA I AL1.S, WI hi- �DIU`N lVl
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
69th Avenue Reconstruction
Change Order No. 3
Item Unit Cost
1. Lower Catch Basin Lead Actual L.S. $920.00
2. North Star Dodge Sewer Service Actual L.S. 6,137.00
3. Install New Corporations Actual L.S. 367.50
4. Locate and Connect Sewer Service at 4101 69th Ave. N. Actual L.S. 1,207.50
5. Add Emergency Vehicle Preemption Device Cable to
France Avenue Signal for Future Use. Actual L.S. 815.10
6. Extend Storm Sewer to Low Area
West of Palmer Lake Drive Est. L.S. 3,600.00
7. Cost Difference for Megalugs Versus
Retaining Rods 22 - 6" Q $14.91 Each 328.02
11 -16" Q $23.75 Each 261.25
$589.27
8. Credit for Deleting Luminaire and Shaft Extension Actual K150)
Total Increase $13,486.37
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/13/92
Agenda Item Number : 1 C�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy Kna , Director of Public Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attachWd
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
• The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to
expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in
accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will
be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as
new trees are marked.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution.
1
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE
REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 10/14/92 )
WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement
has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn
Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased trees on the
owners' property; and
WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by
declaring them a public nuisance:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared
to be a public nuisance:
TREE
PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER
----------- ----------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
JAMES & CAROL STAUBER 7115 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE 308
2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property
owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5)
business days in which to contest the determination of the City
Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall
be filed with the City Clerk.
3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a
hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal
costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges,
shall be specially assessed against the property.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
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.
(REQCSHRG)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER counci Meeting Date Z O 1 13
• Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
***************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE WATER UTILITY FUND TO
PURCHASE A CASH DRAWER AND RECEIPT PRINTER TO REPLACE THE CASH REGISTER
AT THE RECEPTION DESK
DEPT. APPROVAL:
ul,o � h cuo,� Q
Charles Hansen, Assistant Finance Director
ZSANAGER'S REVIEW /RECO ATION:
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below /attached
***************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
The cash register which has been used at the reception desk was
purchased in 1983. In the past year, several hundred dollars have been
spent to repair it when it has broken down. It is now broken again, and
staff feels that it isn't worthwhile to spend additional money on
repairs.
The new financial system has the capability to control the operation of
an electronic cash drawer and receipt printer in a way which duplicates
a cash register. In this process, the financial system collects data
which it is then able to use to produce a daily report now prepared by
hand and update files without additional data entry.
We expect to be able to purchase the hardware for under $1,000, but
cabling and installation could push the total to $1,100. Because of the
unexpected timing of the cash register's failure, and the fact that much
of the transaction volume is from utility bills, it is proposed to make
the purchase from the Water Utility Fund.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Passage of the attached resolution.
4
i
(RESCSHRG)
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE WATER
UTILITY FUND TO PURCHASE A CASH DRAWER AND RECEIPT PRINTER TO
REPLACE THE CASH REGISTER AT THE RECEPTION DESK
--------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, The cash register located at the reception desk was
purchased in 1983 and has been in use continuously since then to process
all types of payments to the City, including utility bills; and
WHEREAS, The cash register is in need of repair and is, in the
opinion of staff, not worth repairing; and
WHEREAS, It is now possible to purchase a cash drawer and
receipt printer which will interact with the new LOGIS Financial System
to duplicate the function of a cash register while automating the
operation and improving efficiency.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. the Finance Department is hereby authorized to purchase a cash
drawer and receipt printer at a cost not to exceed $1,100.
2. the cost of this purchase shall be charged to the Water
Utility Fund.
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 10 /13/9.
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Performance Guarantees
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPR L:
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 following performance guarantees are recommended for release:
• 1. Brookdale Pontiac -Honda
6801 Brooklyn Boulevard
Planning Commission Application No. 89021
Amount of Guarantee - $37,000 bond
Obligor - R. L. Brookdale Motors
All approved site improvements have been installed. An as-
built utility drawing has been submitted and accepted.
Customer parking for up to 23 vehicles has now been adequately
signed and appears to be obeyed. Recommend total release.
2. Brookdale Pontiac -Honda (Used Car Building)
6837 Brooklyn Boulevard
Planning Commission Application No. 85018
Amount of Guarantee - $33,000 bond
Obligor - Earle Weikle and Sons, Inc.
Improvements in the area comprehended by this bond have been
accomplished with the more recent project. Recommend total
release.
Submitted by,
o
Gary Shallcross
Planner
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date October 13 . 1 992
Agenda Item Number /
fe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CLASS B AND SUNDAY ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DAYS INN
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Trevor A. Hampton, Chie of Police
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMI��NDATION: 4 t `
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUIVEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
• Attached you will find a resume by Investigator Donald Spehn which was the result of a
background investigation conducted by Spehn in support of an application for a new on -sale
intoxicating liquor license for the Days Inn, located at 1501 Freeway Boulevard. The location
previously held a liquor license with their management company, Integra, Inc. As Integra, Inc. filed
bankruptcy recently, the owner signed a new management contract with the LaSalle Group, Ltd.
You will note that Spehn finds nothing to preclude issuance of the new license at this time.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council approve issuance of a Class B and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License
for the Days Inn.
The following will be an update on a liquor license for the Day's
Inn, located at 1501 Freeway Blvd. in the City of Brooklyn Center.
The case number will be 92- 14991. This resume is by Investigator
Donald SPEHN and is dictated on October 6, 1992 and is being
transcribed and typewritten by Shirley SWARTOUT, Police Typist for
the Brooklyn Center Police Department.
REASON:
An update of the liquor license is being conducted at this time as
the current owner of the Day's Inn, John Sheehan, doing business as
Innco, has retained a new management firm to manage the Day's Inn
at the Brooklyn Center location. For the past several years the
Day's Inn has been managed by the Integra Management Company. At
the current time Integra is filing bankruptcy proceedings and,
therefore, Innco is retaining a new management company.
APPLICANT:
LaSalle Group Ltd., 2001 Killebrew Drive, Suite 308, Minneapolis,
Mn. 55425, phone 854 -8800. There are two officers of this company,
the first being the President and Chief Executive Officer, Thomas
William LaSalle, DOB 7/31/50, residence 5100 Garfield Ave. So.,
Minneapolis, Mn. 55419, home phone 824 -1358. Executive Vice
President, Maribeth NMN Black, DOB 7/3/44, 1600 W.143rd St., Apt.
311, Burnsville, Mn. 55337.
COMPANY HISTORY:
The LaSalle Group has been in business since 1975. It was founded
by Tom LaSalle and was initially known as Realty Management
Services. In 1989 the name was changed to the LaSalle Group. The
company was originally a development company and developed multi-
unit residential subsidized housing. It is currently still
involved with development and also property management and hotel
development. It is currently managing approximately thirty
properties, mostly apartment buildings, but some commercial and two
hotels. They do manage the Hampton Inn in Richfield as a full
service hotel. However, that particular hotel does not have a
liquor license. Handouts concerning the company are attached.
Also attached are a list of developments and properties that are
currently being managed by the LaSalle Group.
In terms of the Day's Inn it has been stated that at the present
time the LaSalle Group does not intend to change any of the
management staff currently on the premises.
Resume by Investigator SPEHN Page 2
FINANCIAL:
The LaSalle Group Ltd. will have no financial interest in the Day's
Inn. They are being retained as a management firm only.
CRIMINAL HISTORY:
Criminal histories were run on both executive officers and in the
case of Thomas William LaSalle, he was found to be clear with MCIC,
BCA, the Hennepin County Warrant Office and he also has a valid
Minnesota drivers license with no violations.
In the case of Maribeth Black, she was also clear of MCIC, BCA and
the Hennepin County Warrant Office. She has no Minnesota drivers
license, but does possess a valid Illinois drivers license, No. B-
420 -5404 -4789.
PERSONAL HISTORY OF THOMAS WILLIAM LaSALLE:
Mr. LaSalle was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota and is a
United States citizen. He is currently married. His wife's name
is Michelle Marie LaSalle. She is a homemaker. They have resided
at their current address of 5100 Garfield Ave. So. since 1980. The
LaSalle's have five children, three boys and two girls. Mr.
LaSalle graduated from Cretin High School, St. Paul, Minnesota and
attended the University of Minnesota where he graduated in 1972
with a degree of Bachelor of Science and Sociology. From 1972 to
1974 he worked for the Shelter Development Corporation in
Minneapolis. From 1974 to 1975 he was the Property Manager for
Landtech Management Corporation, Minneapolis, Mn. Since 1975 he
has had his own business, LaSalle Group Ltd.
On his off time Mr. LaSalle is active in youth /athletic
organizations and enjoys trout fishing.
REFERENCES FOR THOMAS LaSALLE:
Bruce Nimmer, Siena Corporation, 4940 Viking Drive, Edina,
Minnesota, phone 835 -2808. Mr. Nimmer indicates that he has known
Thomas LaSalle for twenty years and that Mr. LaSalle used to work
for him. He indicates that he is also a social friend of Thomas
Resume by Investigator SPEHN Page 3
LaSalle. Mr. Nimmer describes Mr. LaSalle as a great guy and one
whom he trusts explicitly. He indicates that there is no question
about Mr. LaSalle's honesty. He relates that Mr. LaSalle is a good
family man, indicating that LaSalle's have three children of their
own and then adopted two from South America. He relates that Mr.
LaSalle has a very stable relationship with his family and devotes
most of his time to his business and his family.
When questioned about any hobbies he indicated that Mr. LaSALLE
enjoys fishing and playing hockey. Mr. Nimmer indicated that he
knew of no reason why the LaSalle Group should not be considered
for a liquor license. He indicated that they have run hotel
operations from the Hampton Inn in Richfield.
Mr. Mark Rutzik, of Sherman Rutzik & Associates, 155 So. Wabasha,
Suite 129, St. Paul, Mn., phone 292 -8777. Mr. Rutzik indicated
that he has known Mr. LaSalle through business for approximately
twenty years. He indicates that Mr. LaSalle is a very successful
business man and that Mr. LaSalle and Mr. Rutzik's brothers are
very good friends and play hockey together. He indicated that
everything about Thomas LaSalle is first class. He runs a very
sophisticated organization. He also indicated that Mr. LaSalle is
a first class family man and that he, Rutzik, couldn't manage to
think of a bad thing to say about him.
Mr. Clay Oglesbee, 5065 Garfield Ave. So., Minneapolis, Minnesota,
phone 822 -2945. Mr. Oglesbee indicated that he has known Mr.
LaSalle for about ten years and considers him a good friend. They
are also neighbors. He indicated that he likes Mr. LaSalle very
much. That LaSalle is very conscientious and honest and is very
dedicated to his family. He too indicated that the LaSalle's had
three boys and then adopted two girls from South America, one who
is hearing impaired. Mr. Oglesbee indicated that the whole LaSalle
family then learned to "sign" in order to communicate with the
hearing impaired child. He indicated that Mr. LaSalle is
extraordinary in dealing with business and people. That Mr.
LaSalle is very active in the Roman Catholic Church and that both
Mr. and Mrs. LaSalle coach baseball and soccer for youth teams.
It should be noted that Mr. Oglesbee is a clergyman, the pastor of
the Simpson United Methodist Church. Mr. Oglesbee also related
Resume by Investigator SPEHN Page 4
that he grew up in Brooklyn Center and states that if he was still
a resident, Mr. Tom LaSalle would be exactly the type of guy you
would want to have running an establishment with a liquor license.
Mr. Steve Healy, Gardner Hardware, 515 Western Av. No.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, phone 333 -3393. Mr. Healy indicates that
he has known Thomas LaSalle for approximately five years and that
they have coached Little League and soccer together in the
Minneapolis Park Board. He also indicated that they socialized
together on several occasions. He indicates that Mr. LaSalle is
good company. He is very committed to family type things and he
would describe him as a super person and very nice guy.
Mr. Dean Rafferty, Phlox Lan -
Y. e, Edina, Mn., phone 926 4072.
Mr. Rafferty indicated that he has known Mr. LaSalle since 1976 or
1977 and that he knows him on a social basis. He also indicated
that his wife worked for Mr. LaSalle as a Property Manager from
1976 through 1989. He described Thomas LaSalle as a good business
man with a good upstanding character. A workaholic. An active
parent and good family man.
Mr. John Gorra, Thayer Management, 6400 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite
101, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, phone 949 -3773. Mr. Gorra indicated
that he has known Mr. LaSalle for fifteen years and they met
through business association. He indicated that through the years
they have had a couple of business deals together. He describes
Mr. LaSalle as a real jewel. A smart business man whose mind is in
the right place and a person of outstanding character. He
indicated that he and Mr. LaSalle have fished together in Montana.
That he knows that Mr. LaSalle is active in his church and the
YMCA. He describes him as a real good man. He indicated that Mr.
Lasalle, even on fishing trips etc. hardly drinks at all. He
stated that he is not even a moderate drinker.
PERSONAL HISTORY AND REFERENCES FOR MARIBETH BLACK:
Maribeth Black was born and raised in Columbus, Ohio. She
graduated from Linden McKingley High School in Columbus and then
Resume by Investigator SPEHN Page 5
attended Capitol University in Columbus, Ohio for two years, from
1962 to 1964. She then married and had three daughters, whose
current ages are 25, 22 and 21. She was a homemaker for several
years and then divorced in 1975. She is not currently married.
She then moved to the Chicago area and in 1977 started employment
for Thomas LaSalle by becoming an Assistant Manager of an apartment
complex in which she resided in the Chicago area. She has been
employed with his companies ever since.
It was indicated that the company was originally known as Realty
Management Services, but changed it's name to LaSalle Group in
1989. she has worked her way up to her current position of
Executive Vice President. She currently resides at 1600 West 143rd
St., Apt. 311 in Burnsville. She has two of her daughters living
with her. It was indicated that she moved here in August 1992, but
prior to that had been back and forth between the Minneapolis and
Chicago area for three years.
Maribeth Black indicates she has no hobbies other than watching TV.
REFERENCES:
Jules Galanter, Illinois Housing Development Authority, 401
Michigan Av., Suite 900, Chicago, Illinois 60611, phone (312) 836-
5200. Mr. Galanter indicated that he has known Maribeth Black for
twelve to fifteen years. He indicated that she is good people. Is
intelligent, hard working and an upstanding citizen. He indicated
that he has dealt with her in business through her positions with
the LaSalle Group. He described the LaSalle Group as a first class
operation, an honest firm and indicates that they have been
associated with the Chicago Housing Authority for many years.
He further indicated that the LaSalle Group still manages
properties for the Chicago Housing Authority and that there has
never been a problem on any of the buildings the Chicago Housing
Authority holds mortgages on.
Virginia Thrall, 183 Appaloosa, Naperville, Illinois 60565, phone
(708) 416 -0540. Virginia Thrall indicates that she has known
Maribeth Black for over twenty five years. She indicated that they
have been friends during all this time and that they both were from
Columbus, Ohio. She describes Maribeth as her best friend. She
indicated that they lived together for seven years and indicated
Resume by Investigator SPEHN Page 6
that she is the most wonderful person she has known. She indicated
that we wouldn't have to worry about her, or the company that she
works for. She indicated that Maribeth is a workaholic and when
questioned about how she relaxes she indicated that she likes to
travel and that she also spends quite a bit of her time with her
mother who is a widow, still living in Columbus, Ohio.
When questioned whether Maribeth had any bad habits, she indicated
that the only bad habit she had is smoking cigarettes. She
indicated that Maribeth does not drink as she was getting an ulcer.
Thrall further indicated that in her opinion Maribeth Black was a
very bright person and one who employees and associates like and
respect.
Susan Campbell, CRI Inc., 11200 Rockville Heights, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, phone (301) 231 -0315. Susan Campbell is the Vice
President of CRI Inc. which is a real estate investment company.
Campbell indicated that she has known Maribeth Black since 1989.
She relates that her company, CRI Inc., owns a large building in
Bismark, North Dakota, which the LaSalle Group manages. She
indicated that Maribeth oversees the management of that building.
She describes Maribeth Black as extremely professional. One who
knows her job and one who is "outfront" with everyone.
Susan Campbell indicated that she has learned to value Maribeth's
decisions and looks to her for input concerning their properties.
She indicated that CRI Inc. is the largest owner of multi -unit
family housing in the United States. She indicated that the
LaSalle Group manages several of these properties for them,
approximately eight of them in the Midwest. She indicated that it
is a very good company.
June Waller, 1215 11. Jackson, Macomb, Illinois 61455, phone (309)
836 -1000. Waller indicates that she has known Maribeth Black for
thirteen or fourteen years and stated that one couldn't ask for a
finer person. She indicated that her and.her husband have worked
for Maribeth in the past and that she is a wonderful person to work
for. They managed an apartment building that Maribeth's company
owns and indicated that after they left, their son took over. She
indicated that she couldn't say anything bad about her. That she
was a person who worked her way up in the company by being honest
and hardworking and by having everyone like her. She indicated
that Maribeth Black is on the u p p and u at all times.
Resume by Investigator SPEHN Page 7
CONCLUSION:
This investigation has determined nothing detrimental to the
LaSalle Group Ltd. or it's executive officers, Thomas LaSalle or
Maribeth Black.
Their references all speak highly of them. The company has been in
business a number of years and has a large portfolio of properties
that they manage. It was also learned that this company, the
LaSalle Group, Ltd., is currently managing The Ponds complex in
Brooklyn Center. Spehn has checked with Brad Hoffman and Tom
Bublitz of the City of Brooklyn Center and both indicate that they
are not aware of any problems with the LaSalle Group managing the
Ponds and, in fact, indicate that since they have taken over the
management they have eliminated many of the problems that have been
there prior to their taking over. They indicate that the LaSalle
Group was requested by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to
manage The Ponds.
Based on this background of the company and the executive officers,
the investigator can find no reason why they should not be issued,
or allowed to retain, the liquor license issued to the Day's Inn.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 10/13/92
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
i
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
LICENSES
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEUENDATION: �
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUIVEVIARY 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 October 13, 1992:
COMMERCIAL KENNEL P �
Snyder Brothers Drug Store 1296 Brookdale Center
Sanitarian
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Lutheran Church of the
Triune God Preschool 5827 Humboldt Avenue N. �• a • �,�C
Sanitarian ) OC
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Q
St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. �
Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Air One Mechanical Corporation 6317 Welcome Ave. N.
Unique Air, Inc. 4748 Nicollet Ave. S. C ' a • ���/1�cM
Building Official ALL
RENTAL DWELLINGS
1p nitial:
GFS of Minnesota, Inc. Brookside Manor Apts.
Fredric M. Guthrie 5843 Fremont Ave. N.
Renewal:
Burgundy Properties, Inc. Hi Crest Apts.
Lang Nelson Associates Twin Lake North Apts.
Rena B. Johnson 5324 Bryant Ave. N.
Paul Hinck 4715 France Ave. N. 4AA4.t%-, Ak-
Director of Planning
and Inspections
SIGN HANGER
William Forster Corporation 1050 Plastermill Road 1 •a • A
Building Official
GENERAL APPROVAL: . P-- Ph CA2
P. Page, DepfAy Clerk