Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 10-21 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 21, 1991 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Reports: a. Town Meeting on Charter Preamble (Community Mission Statement) November 14, 1991 b. Town Meeting on Transit Issues (Opt -In Program, Joint Powers Opportunities) November 21, 1991 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. October 7, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Planning Commission Items: (7:05 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 91019 submitted by Condura Marketing Corporation is a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to install and operate a Tires Plus store in the commercial building at 5927 John Martin Drive. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its October 10, 1991, regular meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 91020 submitted by Brooklyn Center Baptist Church is a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel on which the church and the parsonage presently sit in order to sell off the church building to another congregation. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its October 10, 1991, regular meeting. 1. Final Plat Approval - Brooklyn Center Baptist 40 Church CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 21, 1991 9. Discussion Items: a. Tobacco Free Policy b. Video Display Terminal (VDT) Eye Wear Purchase Policy C. Street Maintenance and Improvement Policies 10. Resolutions: a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Construction of New Lift Station No. 2, Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, Contract 1991 -P -Lift Station No. 2 is Located between Lyndale Avenue and the Mississippi River at 55th Avenue North. b. Approving Agreement with Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for Cost Participation in Lift Station No. 2, Improvement Project No. 1990 -05 C. Regarding Bids for Community Water Slide Improvement Project No. 1990 -24, Contract 1991 -R -Three options provided for consideration. *d. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1991 -16 and Approving Easement Negotiations for Trail Improvements at Humboldt Square *e. Authorizing Sale of City Owned Property in the Vicinity of 66th Avenue and Chowen Avenue North *f. Accepting Work Performed under Improvement Project No. 1991 -21, Contract 1991 -Q, Sidewalk Replacement - Various Locations g. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1991 -23, Sewer Replacement at Brooklyn Drive, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids *h. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 10/21/91) *i. Authorizing the City Manager to Write -Off Uncollectible Accounts Receivables *j. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club k. Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 Submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. *1. Accepting Quotes and Authorizing One (1) 1,500 Gallon Water Tank - Approved in 1991 street maintenance budget. This tank will be mounted on a Ford F800 truck. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- October 21, 1991 11. Presentation of Proposed 1992 City Manager's Budget *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 7, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Director of Recreation Arnie Mavis, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Peggy McNabb. OPENING CEREMONIES Jim McCloskey offered the invocation. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson announced and congratulated the $SO winners of the August and September recycling contests. Councilmember Pedlar advised the Mayor and Council that the Financial Task Force is moving along well and will begin meeting with department heads on October 16, 1991. He thanked Councilmember Cohen for a very helpful presentation made at a recent meeting. The Mayor advised the Council that, with the exception of the Planning Commission, he has met with the various city commissions and expressed appreciation and support on behalf of the Council and residents for the work they do, and in addition offered any assistance the Council may be able to provide. 10/7191 - 1 - APPROVAL QF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. No requests were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of September 23, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS R - RESOLUTION N . 91 235 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON WEST RIVER ROAD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18, CONTRACT 1989 -I The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 91 -236 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON CONTRACT FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -08 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -237 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -C The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. i 10/7/91 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 91 -238 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -22, CODE CORRECTIONS AT COMMUNITY CENTER, PROVIDING FUNDING THEREFORE AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING THERETO The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -239 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 10/7/91) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -240 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE ICENSE FOR BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB AT LYNBROOK BOWL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -241 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONAUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE FOR BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB AT EARLE BROWN BOWL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 10/7/91 -3- RESOLUTION N O. 91 -242 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY -- WRIGHT LINE MODEL P5650 CARD PUNCH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar approving the final plat of Howe Inc. 2nd Addition. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lioness 6500 Humboldt Avenue N Brooklyn Center Lions 6500 Humboldt Avenue N NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: David and Carolyn Wagtskjold 6845 Willow Lane N Jun Stalberger /Al Juhnke 3135 - 49th Avenue N Nell Davis 3827 - 69th Avenue N SWIMMING POOL Gittleman Management Corp. 7900 Xerxes Avenue S Beach Condominiums 4201 Lakeside Avenue N The motion passed unanimously. 10/7/91 -4- PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 -- PDO FOOD STORES INC The City Manager presented Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc., requesting site and building plan and a special use permit approval to construct a 2,400- square -foot gas station/convenience store /car wash on the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and T.H. 252. The application was first considered by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on September 12, 1991, at which time the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of this application on the grounds that the standards for special use permits could not be met. Therefore, the Planning Commission, at its September 27, 1991, meeting, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -5 recommending denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the details of the Planning Commission's consideration, noting at its September 12, 1991, meeting the Planning Commission sought to encourage the applicant to modify the plans particularly with respect to: 1) suggested improvements to the proposed access to the site from the frontage road; 2) suggested improvements to the layout of the site, particularly the position of the gas pumps, to better lead patrons to access the property from a shared access to the east and to flow through the property with minimal congestion; 3) other suggested improvements to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets in the immediate vicinity; 4) a masonry wall rather than the proposed 6' wood screening fence to provide better screening of headlights, a stronger noise buffer, and also for durability and maintenance factors; and 5) suggested modifications to the types and intensity of the proposed lighting and canopy. The applicants were unwilling to consider the suggested modifications of the plan; and, therefore, the recommended denial. The property owner is Howard Atkins; the site currently houses the offices of Atkins Mechanical, Inc. The property has been approved for C2 zoning (subject to filing of the replat of this property). The area surrounding the property is C2 and R5 -- 66th Avenue North on the north, vacant Cl zone land (again, subject to filing of the plat) on the east, the Brookdale Motel on the south, and the West River Road frontage road on the west. Notices of the City Council's consideration of this application have been sent to residents in the affected vicinity. The application does include a request for a special use permit as gas stations and car washes are special uses in C2 zoning districts. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented an overhead transparency of the proposed site layout and reviewed recommended modifications. The proposed plan calls for three accesses to the site, two 30' wide driveways off the West River Road frontage road, and one 30' wide access onto a driveway to be constructed on the parcel to the east which will access onto 66th Avenue North at the median opening. The driveway on the east will become a joint access when that parcel is developed; and staff have recommended to the 1017/91 _ 5 _ applicant the access to this joint driveway be further north as was the case when the Fina plan was approved. Staff have also recommended that no access off the frontage road should be closer to 66th than the current access to Atkins Mechanical; the northerly proposed access is about 25' closer. The proposed station would have nine pump islands, six to the north and three to the south of the building. The proposed detached car wash is not consistent with Section 35 -414.6 of the zoning ordinance which requires that facilities for washing "must be enclosed within the principal building." Therefore, the applicant has requested the City consider an ordinance amendment to allow separate facilities for car washes which is included and will be addressed later in the Council's agenda. The Planning Commission felt it was necessary to revise the plans submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. in the following manner as a means of meeting the five standards for special use permits. The main points of contention are: 1. Consideration of an access off the frontage road no closer to 66th Avenue North than the existing access serving the Atkins Mechanical site. 2. Consideration of a site design that clearly leads patrons to exit the site via a shared access leading to the existing median opening on 66th Avenue North. 3. Consideration of a site design that might lead to the elimination of some gasoline dispensing pumps which would lead to better circulation on the site. 4. Consideration of only one access point from the frontage road serving this site. 5. Modification of the plans for the canopy to provide recessed lights to avoid light glare to the neighboring property. 6. Elimination of the neon band on the canopy. 7. Modification to the plan to include a minimum 6' high masonry wall to provide appropriate screening of the site to the residential property to the east. At the September 12, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, the applicants were present and indicated it is not their desire at this time to provide any modifications to the design plans. The Planning Commission, therefore, directed staff to draft a resolution recommending denial on the basis of the standards for the special use permit had not been met and most likely would not be met because the applicants had indicated it was not their desire to do SO. 10/7/91 -6- Specifically, the Commission found the standards are not or will not be met on the basis of the following: 1. The arrangement of the access drives on the proposed site plan does not lead motorists to exit the site via the joint driveway to the median opening in 66th Avenue North. The result of this arrangement will be for many cars exiting the site onto the frontage road and creating traffic congestion at the intersection of the frontage road and 66th Avenue North immediately east of Highway 252. An appropriate access design for this site would have only one access onto the frontage road no closer to 66th Avenue North than the existing access to Atkins Mechanical. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a gas station/convenience store /car wash will not promote and enhance the general public welfare since there is already a gas station/convenience store at the same intersection across Highway 252. 3. The presence of another 24 -hour gas station/convenience store in the neighborhood may attract more crime in the area similar to what has been experienced recently at SuperAmerica on the west side of Highway 252. 4. The lighting of the canopy and the noise and fumes from the service station will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted. It is also believed that property values in this area may suffer if the service station be built as proposed. 5. The establishment of the proposed gas station/convenience store /car wash will be a disincentive for property owners in the area to maintain and upgrade their property because of its negative impact. The Director of Planning and Inspection also pointed out the Councilmembers had in their agenda packets a copy of a letter from Evan Green, Project Manager, Minnesota Department of Transportation, reviewing the proposed plan as it relates to T.H. 252 from their perspective, in which several traffic congestion concerns were raised on the proposed site as presented. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. at 7:25 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Jim Merila, Merila and Associates, the engineering firm hired by PDQ Food Stores, Inc., began his address to the Council by stating he didn't feel there was a debate here as to whether or not a gas station should be at this location since that was determined approximately two years ago when, after extensive discussions and studies, the Council approved a similar request from Fina. 10/7/91 -7- Mr. Merila presented three rendering use e permits and reviewed the differences of opinion design factor of the proposal and the standards for a special p n as to the . In response to the issue regarding the access from the parcel and driveway access onto the frontage road area, Mr. Shelton advised the Council the proposed site plan has the driveway moved 25' farther to the south than to the existing driveway to provide for good ingress an egress at the service station site. PDQ felt due to the elevation difference between 66th Avenue and the site, it is too steep to have the access at that location. Mr. Merila added PDQ desires the building at the same elevation as West River Road. The proposed building elevation is 6" higher than existing building, primarily for maximum /impressionable visibility from West River Road. Mr. Merila presented an overhead transparency showing the proposed traffic configuration ati on of the site, and stated PDQ would like to have double access in the event the first access is congested, traffic can continue on to the second access. He further stated the car wash is in back of the station so cars can come through the service station area and then go straight on back to the car wash. He added PDQ figures indicate only 10% of the service station traffic goes on to use the car wash. In response to the relative proximity of the driveway to the pumps, Mr. Merila pointed out currently the distance from the driveway to the property line is 75', and once the property is subdivided as proposed the distance will be 90' from the driveway location to the property line, both of which are well within the 40' required in section 35 -414, subd. 4 of the City ordinances. In response to promoting and enhancing the general public welfare of Brooklyn Center, Mr. Shelton maintained a store at this location would enhance the general public welfare by providing competitive pricing in the gas station/convenience store marketplace. He reiterated at this point this application is basically the same as was approved for both Fina at this specific location and SuperAmerica on the west side of T.H. 252. In response to the threat of increased crime rate, Mr. Shelton maintained this application is no different than the Fina application which was approved, and crime should not be a problem with proper enforcement. Mr. Shelton also felt T.H. 252 is a barrier which would divide the customer base; PDQ's customer base would be the east side of T.H. 252, and SuperAmerica's customer base would be the west side of T.H. 252. In addition, PDQ enforces a strict policy against loitering and has a good reputation of working well with local law enforcement agencies. In response to the lighting of the canopy, the neon band around the store, and the threat of reduced property values, Mr. Shelton indicated PDQ's proposed plans are in complete compliance with the City ordinances for C2 zoning requirements. The plan includes a 6' wood screening fence with more than the required amount of landscaping. He felt the lighting would be less than at SuperAmerica. In response to the City's concerns on the glare 10/7/91 -S- from the canopy lights, PDQ is in agreement to providing a shadow screen on the canopy that would keep the lights from shining over to the residential area, and all lighting intensity will be in compliance with the City ordinances. In response to the threat of declining property values of neighboring homes, Mr. Shelton felt there was no basis to substantiate this finding because the homes in this area are extremely well maintained. He added the rationale and justification at this location are again the same as at the proposed Fina and SuperAmerica. In response to Councilmember Cohen's comment that the comments and concerns of MNDOT had not been addressed by y Q, Mr. Merila indicated he had dust received a copy of MNDO T s letter earlier today, but he felt the 25' relocation of the driveway was merely a matter of opinion, and since the frontage road is already in place and the ordinance requirement is met, PDQ is not interested in relocating the driveway. From background information provided in the Planning Commission meeting minutes, Councilmember Rosene asked Mr. Shelton about PDQ's willingness to fund the construction of an acceleration lane to reduce traffic congestion at 66th Avenue North and T.H. 252, but yet an unwillingness to consider a masonry wall rather than a 6' wood fence. Mr. Shelton's response was PDQ felt a 6' wood fence is more attractive to a neighborhood and easier aster to maintain than a masonry wall; the cost factor was not a consideration when designing the plan. Following a brief address by Chris Jacobson, Director of Operations, PDQ Food Stores Inc. on the rationale of the ingress, egress and traffic movement configuration issues, Councilmember Cohen directed staff to prepare a report addressing the traffic congestion issue and comparing the frontage road along West River Road at the subject site to the main arterial road immediately in front of SuperAmerica. The City Manager - pointed out to the PDQ representatives the City's objective in relocating the access is to keep traffic moving for safety considerations, and while it may appear to be inconvenient to patrons, safety is by far more important than perceived convenience. The Mayor inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council. The following residents responded: Rod Snyder, 6408 Willow Lane, advised the Council he had been attending the Planning Commission's sessions and open hearings for quite some time. He asked if the Council is bound ou to its decision that previously granted a special use permit to Fina. He added he and several neighbors felt very strongly that decision two years ago was made in error, and they are hopeful the Council will not be bound to this application based on that approval. Mr. Snyder next pointed out the differences between the areas that surround the SuperAmerica site and the subject site. SuperAmerica is buffered by a freeway on the east, 10/7/91 -9 businesses on the south distance before individual residences can be found and rental buildings to the west and north, noting it Is quite some . This proposed PDQ would mean a M hour lighted station within a few feet from peoples' homes, which would adversely affect the property values because of the additional traffic congestion and the threat of increased crime. He pointed out the intersection has already been re- engineered once because of the heavy traffic and expressed concern of increased danger with this type of development. Mr. Snyder said he and his neighbors feel they are struggling to maintain a quality neighborhood because of both the heavy traffic on T.H. 252 and the increased crime rate since SuperAmerica opened. On behalf of the residents in his neighborhood, Mr. Snyder expressed pride in being a Brooklyn Center resident and felt it would not be in the best interest to develop another 24 -hour gas station. He added the competition factor Mr. Shelton raised is not a good argument because SuperAmerica is already very competitive. Mr. Snyder concluded his address by asking the Council to deny this application for a site and building plan and special use permit. Philip Delane, 6518 Willow Lane, addressed the Council and stated a great deal has changed since the Fina application was approved, and expressed a great concern over the safety aspect relative to the significant amount of traffic congestion at this intersection. He further added the MTC bus stop near that intersection complicates the exit off the freeway, and re- engineering has already been required once to accommodate the traffic exiting off the freeway. Mr. Delane also pointed out that the wood fence built by the Highway Department as a barricade for the bicycle path has already been damaged by vandals, and he felt a masonry wall would be stronger and much more sound absorbent. He is also concerned about the increased crime rate and believed there is no reason to believe crime would be any Iess at a PDQ station than at a SuperAmerica station. i Arvid Kuutti, 6400 Willow Lane, addressed the Council and indicated his main concern is safety. He believes this intersection is the most dangerous in the greater metropolitan area as it is not uncommon for cars and trucks to go through the intersection at speeds up to 70 miles per hour. He suggested a petition recommending the overpass be moved to 69th Avenue to eliminate some of the traffic congestion and to provide ovlde mor e safe traffic and pedestrians. P e movement t of tr Richard Cameron, 6620 Willow Lane, addressed the Council and expressed complete agreement with the previous residents. He advised the Council PDQ has a very nice- Iooking store in Plymouth which is built in a depressed land site with not nearly the amount of lights. Mr. Cameron added he is also in agreement with at least two of the Planning Commission members who felt this type of development is not appropriate for this site even if all the conditions could be met. He felt the site is too close to a residential area to be zoned C2 and ro er values would P P tY be adversely affected by this type of development. Victoria Snyder, 6408 Willow Lane, told the Council she experiences difficulty in making a left -hand turn going south on T.H. 252. At times it take her as many 10/7/91 -10- as three lights to pull out. She added the crime situation is also a great concern to her and asked the Council to deny the special use permit. Chris Jacobson, Director of Operations, PDQ Food Stores, Inc., stated a PDQ would assist SuperAmerica in servicing the 54,000 cars on T.H. 252 each day and would reduce the traffic congestion at the SuperAmerica side of the highway. In addition, having service stations on both the east side and west side of T.H. 252 would eliminate the need for current SuperAmerica patrons to have to cross over T.H. 252 in either accessing or exiting the service station. In response to Councilmember Rosene's request for a description of the PDQ store in Plymouth, Mr. Jacobson indicated the main difference is that it does not have a canopy. He added, however, PDQ is now installing canopies at all its stores in order to protect patrons from the weather elements as are most oil companies. Richard Jewitt, 6552 Willow Lane, addressed the Council on his concern about the increased number of cars coming down on Willow Lane to turn around. Currently three to four cars come down Willow Lane daily to turn around; and he felt this number would certainly increase. He added he is familiar with the PDQ in Plymouth and advised the Council it is completely surrounded by commercial property and appears to be a lot smaller than this proposed station. He concluded by saying he is also very concerned about P otential crime. Jim McCloskey, 8534 Riverview, Brooklyn Park, addressed the Council and stated he was a past member of the Planning Commission. He advised the Council he did not think a 24- hour service station is good for the site, and added his main concern is the safety of people getting off the bus at this intersection. He felt PDQ would have to assume all liability for any injuries from all cars turning onto T.H. 252. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out the Fina plan submitted two years ago was approved by the Council after a great deal of careful review and deliberation. He added that the layout and configuration proposed by Fina were quite a bit different than this one being proposed by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. He indicated the City's main concern is to maintain the current effective engineering design of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North, and added the comments submitted by the Highway Department point that out quite well. The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council the canopy and lighted panels at SuperAmerica were not in the plan that was approved and is on file in the City offices. He said the City has made contact with SuperAmerica and will pursue this discrepancy. The Director of Public Works reviewed engineering concerns on the traffic flow and congestion: 1. The proposed driveways are wide enough to be two -way driveways. 10/7/91 2. The pump islands are two- sided. It is misleading to say all the traffic will be encouraged to all go through the site in the same direction. Experience indicates it just doesn't work that way when the pumps are two- sided. 3. All proposed parking on the site is at 90- degree angles which is conducive to two -way traffic rather than one -way. 4. Regarding the proposed shared driveway with future development, PDQ has objected to designing two hard left -hand turns coming m to the site however, the e hard left- hand turns going out of the site are much harder than the two hard left -hand turns coming into the site to which they objected. 5. Staff have attempted to suggest eight to ten configuration modifications that would make the site plan more acceptable to the City and probably more accommodating to its patrons, but the applicant P scant pp has rejected them all. Thus, the basis for the denial recommendation. Mr. Shelton responded to those comments by saying that PDQ felt the layout as P P ro osed does lend itself very well to good traffic movement. H d g e added PDQ would be willing to construct a masonry wall rather than a 6' wood fence. L.T. Merrigan, representing the property owner, addressed the Council and stated he felt the major point of contention is the location of the access points. He pointed out the plan does conform to the City ordinances as far as distances are concerned. He suggested if the Council is of the opinion that a service ee station is an appropriate ase for this site e similar to what has been proposed, this request be approved as submitted by PDQ subject to the condition that the concerns of the Council and staff be worked out with PDQ Food Stores, Inc., to mutual satisfaction. He further recommended as an alternative, any Council action on this request be deferred until these issues can be further addressed. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing. In response to Mr. Snyder's request for clarification as to what degree the Council is in fact bound by the five criteria established in section 35 -220 on standards for special use permits, the City Attorney stated the City is bound by the ordinance to the degree that if the criteria are met, a special use must be granted; if the criteria are not met, a special use permit can be denied. He added, however, these particular criteria can become a matter of opinion, and expert planners would be needed to testify in a court as to whether or not these standards were met. He pointed out this property has historically been a service station site. A service station is a conditional use of a C2 zone, and if a court were to find that the standards for a special use permit had been met, the City would be compelled to issue a special use permit. He added service stations have very different characteristics than other 10/7191 - 12 -' C2 permitted uses such as retail stores. Some examples are more litter, more noise, more traffic, more mechanical noises of the car wash in operation, and longer hours of operation. These would be rational bases for the City to consider this type of use different from other permitted uses in a C2 zone. The City Attorney advised the Council the question before them is whether this property use with the layout as proposed and with the characteristics of the site meet the standards for a special use permit. He added it would be difficult to find a credible appraiser to substantiate that property values would diminish because of the service station, and the SuperAmerica on the west side of T.H. 252 and the fact that this site s s t has formerly been a gas station would definitely not be in the City's favor. He recommended the Council make an honest judgement in accordance with the criteria in the ordinance, and he felt a court could not substitute its judgement for that of the Council. The motion to close the public hearing passed unanimously at 8:48 p.m. Councilmember Pedlar advised the Council he did not support the Fina request and could not support this request from PDQ Food Stores, Inc., mainly for two reasons. He supported the residents' concern about an adverse effect on property values, and recalled residents' same concern two years ago when Fina submitted a proposal. He also discussed the current crime situation at SuperAmerica, and stated police records would certainly indicate the SuperAmerica station is experiencing a great deal of serious confrontation problems. With due respect to Mr. Atkins' right to sell his property, he felt the Council needs to look at what would be in the best interest of the community when considering development of this site. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question as to where the City would stand if the applicant were to meet the standards as set forth for the special use permits as far as traffic movement, lighting, etc., the Director of Planning and Inspection said that if the site plan were revised as suggested, the critical standard as to whether this development would promote and enhance the general welfare and not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort, would have been addressed. Councilmember Scott reported she had driven to the intersection over the weekend to observe the traffic congestion. She agreed with Mr. Snyder that the intersection is very dangerous, and it is extremely difficult to make a left -hand turn onto T.H. 1 52. She expressed concerns about both the traffic congestion and the layout as proposed. She further questioned PDQ's lack of interest in trying to work out the concerns and recommendations by the City PIanning Commission and staff. Councilmember Rosene felt the general welfare of Brooklyn Center may not be best served by this sort of commercial use at this site. 14/7191 -13- In response to Mayor Paulson's request for a comparison of this ingress and egress to the similar situation on Brooklyn Boulevard addressed by the Council several weeks ago, the Director of Planning and Inspection and the Public Works Director indicated several significant differences, including the requirement of a special use permit for this use, a much higher volume of vehicles at this location over the Brooklyn Boulevard location, and a much higher rate of speed of the cars travelling on this highway. Councilmember Cohen suggested the Council consider tabling this request for further review, and asked the City Attorney about the legality and time frame of such action. The City Attorney responded by saying that tabling it for an indefinite period of time should be at the request of the applicant. The Council could defer action for 30 days from this evening in order to make a final determination. He added the City does have some time either with or without the acceptance of the applicant; however, given the history of this issue it seems that approving it subject to the parties working out the concerns and standards to mutual satisfaction probably would not be effective. Councilmember Cohen suggested a resolution be drafted addressing specifically the standards for special use permits and the City Attorney's concerns with respect to those standards as applied to this particular application. A resolution such as this would ensure any action taken by the City Council would be warranted. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question as to why PDQ objects to recessed lighting, Mr. Shelton said they desire the same exposure SuperAmerica enjoys on the west side of T.H. 252. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question as to what ways the welfare of the City of Brooklyn Center would be enhanced by a PDQ service station, Mr. Shelton reiterated Mr. Jacobson's earlier comments that it would assist SuperAmerica in servicing the 54,000 cars on T.H. 252 each day, and would reduce the traffic congestion at the SuperAmerica side of the highway. In addition, having service stations on both the east side and west side of T.H. 252 would eliminate the need for current SuperAmerica patrons to have to cross over T.H. 252 in either accessing or exiting the service station. He further suggested while it may not necessarily enhance the general welfare of Brooklyn Center, he felt it would not take away from it. He felt it would be well landscaped and attractive, and may well be better than some other type of business that may go at this site if PDQ does not. The City Attorney cautioned the Council about relying on that particular clause in standard (a) of section 35 -220 regarding enhancement of the general welfare on a denial of this request because it could in fact enhance the City's welfare by creating jobs and providing a service. It would be difficult to defend because doing so would also imply that any C2 business here would not meet that specific standard criterion. 10/7/91 -14- Councilmember Pedlar asked the City Attorney to more clearly define standards (a) and (b) of section 35 -220 at the next meeting. He further asked the City Manager to compile information on the number and types of police calls currently occurring at SuperAmerica. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 based upon the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions that the application does not meet the provisions for standards for a special use permit, and to further direct staff and the City Attorney to elaborate on the provisions for standards for special use permits to ensure any action taken by City Council is warranted. The motion passed unanimously. LECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9 :35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:53 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS WATER SLIDE OPERATIONS AND SCHEDULING The City Manager presented information on the water slide operations as requested by the Council at its September 23, 1991, meeting. The information included a report from North Star Risk Services, Inc., relating to loss prevention, as well as a response to that report from Mjorud Architecture; and a copy of the Minnesota Department of Health's regulations regarding flume water slides. The City Manager also presented an overhead transparency of the modified lan and reviewed the new "double" loop which was designed after discussions with and recommendations from other architects, as well as the recommended lap swimming lanes. He added the State health staff have recommended minimum swimming activity near the water slide discharge and exit area. The Recreation Director distributed the proposed swimming and swimming- related activities seasonal schedules and advised the Council the schedules have been designed to provide both maximum use of the swimming pool and a fair amount of time for every type of swimming activity. The Mayor, Council and staff discussed the proposed schedules and the different groups of swimming pool users and activities. In response to the Mayor's question as to how the schedules are provided to residents, the Recreation Director said the schedules are published in local newspapers and the City Manager's newsletters, as well as distributed through brochures prepared by the Recreation Department. He reported staff have been successful in continually promoting use of the pool and added a home school group recently utilized the swimming pool in order to fulfill a physical education requirement. 10/7/91 -15- In response to the Mayor's suggestion that the pool should be large enough to accommodate every type of swimming activity without any type of restrictive scheduling, the City Manager and staff indicated many swimming activities don't seem to mix well, and lap swimmers strongly prefer the pool to themselves as it is difficult to swim laps when there are other swimming activities occurring. The City Manager added several lap swimmers repeatedly call prior to coming in to ensure the pool is void of swimmers. Councilmember Scott reviewed the swimming schedules and pointed out the lap swimmers will continue to be able to swim lengthwise laps regularly during lap swimming hours, and in addition will be able to swim laps across the width of the pool when the water slide is in use. Councilmember Rosene invited Diane Johnson, 67th and Bryant Avenues, to address the Council. Ms. Johnson advised the Council she has been an avid lap swimmer at the Community Center pool since 1982, and the August 19, 1991, P ublication announcin g the construction of a water slide took her by surprise since she has been at the pool regularly. She raised several concerns regarding the operation, promotion, and management of the swimming pool, and advised the Council that several suggestions and recommendations she has offered to the staff from an experienced user's point of view over the years have been impolitely received and then completely disregarded. She further questioned the costs of operation, additionalliability s ecial ne- v o ni ht events, and increasing P � p g c easing membership fees. She felt there is a need for several more lap swimming lanes in order to reduce the number of lap swimmers in the swimming lane at the same time. She advised the Council that lap swimmers need to swim consistently every day in order to meet their objective and added every consideration and accommodation the Community Center pool can offer lap swimmers is important and greatly appre ciated. p She concluded b sa in she felt very discouraged �' Y Y saying n' g by what has been happening with the swimming pool and is hopeful to see some communication with swimmers result in improved conditions. The Mayor, Council and staff discussed Ms. Johnson's concerns and questions, and concurred that all types of swimmers need to be accommodated as much of the time as possible, the water slide should help the swimming pool bring in additional revenue, and staff need to work on creative ways to promote use of the pool. Councilmember Cohen suggested perhaps the City Council is not the best source to be making swimming pool decisions and possibly a study should be done to obtain some valid opinions and figures. Councilmember Pedlar reviewed the objective of the swimming pool operation and stated the pool and water slide will need content customers in order to bring in money. He felt the problems of communication have now been identified, and can be successfully resolved. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Mayor Paulson directing staff to obtain clear input from the regular lap swimmers as to how they can best be 10/7/91 -16- accommodated, and to then develop a swimming pool program and schedule which will facilitate maximum use of the pool and accommodate all the different types of swimming groups /customers to be brought back to the Council for further consideration. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91017 SUBMITTED BY DENNIS AND GLORIA CARDINAL The City Manager presented a resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 91017 submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal, pointing out the Council had considered the application on September 21, 1991, and had at that time requested staff to prepare a resolution outlining the history and facts of this application and setting forth the reasoning and rationale for denial. The application was a request for an appeal of a determination made by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone is a nuisance as defined by section 19 -103 of the City ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to address the Council. Bob Wilson, attorney at law representing Dennis and Gloria Cardinal, came before the Council and expressed disappointment that the Council would adopt this resolution denying the application which will result in the City facing a lawsuit. Mr. Cardinal also expressed disappointment in the Council's decision and uestion d q e why other owners of tow trucks had not been ticketed. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded he is unaware of any violators at this time, and would in fact pursue any violations that may be occurring. RESOLUTION N0. 91 -243 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91017 SUBMITTED BY DENNIS AND GLORIA CARDINAL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosen, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GAMBLING REGULATIONS The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Gambling Regulations for a first reading. A criterion established by the State's Gambling Board for city liquor licenses is that charitable organizations may only pay the 10/7191 -17- liquor establishment a rent which cannot be based on the proceeds. Brooklyn Center originally set this rent limit at $100 per week, which at the time was the maximum allowed by the State's Gambling Board. The State, however, has since raised this limit, first in 1989 to $600 and just recently to $1,000 per month. This amendment is in response to a request from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for the City to review its rate and increase it to $700 per month as the Lions Club was unaware of the City's $100 per week limit, and has been paying $600 per month since the State increased its limit. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Gambling Regulations. The motion passed unanimously. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement in Earle Brown 1st Addition for a first reading. The owner of Lot 4, Block 1, Paul Horarik, has requested that the City vacate a portion of the easement adjacent to his easterly lot line, as it is his desire to build a garage next to the house into the area currently dedicated as public easement. The ordinance is provided for consideration and a first reading by the City Council, and if the first reading is conducted, the ro osed ordinance P P will be published along with a notice of public hearing, prior to final adoption of the ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve for first reading An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement in Earle Brown 1st Addition and setting a public hearing for November 4, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE TO ALLOW DETACHED CAR WASHES AT SERVICE STATION SITES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City's Ordinance to Allow Detached Car Washes at Service Station Sites for a first reading. The Planning Commission considered the above entitled ordinance amendment during its review of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 involving the proposed PDQ gas station/convenience store/car wash. Detached car washes are not permitted under the current ordinance which requires facilities for washing vehicles to be enclosed within the principal building. If approved, a date and time for public hearing will be established. In response to Councilmember Cohen's request for explanation as to why it would be beneficial for the City to amend the ordinance, the City Manager advised the Council the original intent of the ordinance was basically to ensure an acceptable type of structure /exterior. He added, however, being able to provide either an attached or detached facility will provide greater flexibility in designing for good traffic circulation and appropriate stacking, and by requiring the building materials and exterior treatment of a detached facility 10/7/91 - 18- be of the same level of quality as the principal building should address any concerns regarding the appearance of such a building on the site. The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council that owners of service stations need a special use permit in order to either install a car wash at a service station without one, or to detach an existing attached car wash. Councilmember Rosene raised a concern that a portion of the Planning Commission's recommendation may have been lost in the proposed amendment to the ordinance, and recommended the ordinance should include that the exterior of the car wash should match that of the primary building. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that may be difficult because of availability of the same types of supplies years after original construction. In response to Councilmember Pedlar's suggestion that the Council may want to consider limiting the hours of operation of car washes, Councilmember Cohen suggested including the restricted hours of operation in the special use permit. The City Attorney advised the Council if it can be substantiated that the hours need to be restricted in order for an application to meet standards of the special use permit, then the hours can in fact be restricted. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City's Ordinance to Allow Detached Car Washes at Service Station Sites and setting a public hearing for November 4, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS -- CONTINUED STAFF REPORTS REGARDING PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM FINANCING The City Manager presented the staff reports regarding public utility system financing and advised the Council it is at this time of year the Council generally addresses utility rate schedules. REVIEW OF WATER UTILITY RATES The Public Works Coordinator briefly reviewed a schedule of the water utility anticipated capital improvements, and advised the Council that staff had reviewed the currently scheduled water rates to determine their continued adequacy. While the existing 1992 rate established in resolution No. 90 -247 is expected to adequately support the expected 1992 expenditures, with the anticipated capital outlays, cash and investment reserves will fall below the $3.7 million minimum balance retained as a restricted reserve for purposes of partial funding of a future water treatment plant. The scheduled rate increases would assist in both avoiding operating losses and maintaining cash reserves. 10/7/91 -19- The Public Works Coordinator presented the anticipated usage activity for the next two years and pointed out the projected deficit in 1991 is a result of decreased water use due to the excessive rainfall the City has experienced this year. She further advised the Council that while the fund balance has covered capital improvements over the past few years, the balance is going to continue to fall because of the many improvements the Public Works Department anticipates over the next few years. The Public Works Coordinator presented a staff review of possibly phasing out the use of interest earnings to subsidize the water utility rates. The review was in response to a recommendation from the City's financial auditors to avoid the practice of passing on the costs of today's services to tomorrow's taxpayers. The Public Works Coordinator reviewed the performance expected over the next two years and recommended the interest rate subsidy be phased out at a rate of 20% each year to provide additional reserves for capital outlay and to move toward making the utility operations self - sustaining. A study of the long -term effect of this subsidy shows by the year 2000, the subsidy results in a ten -cent differential in the rate per 1,000 gallons of water. However, phasing out the subsidy could increase cash reserves for capital projects by as much as $1 million by year 2000. Maintaining a restricted reserve for a future treatment plant would reduce the impact of a rate increase to retire a bond issue by reducing the amount the utility would need to borrow. In response to Councilmember Pedlar's question as to what effect increased water rates have on usage and consumption rates, the Public Works Director stated based on Brooklyn Center's past experience and discussions with other cities, unless the rates are increased substantially, they really don't noticeably impact the usage. Councilmember Cohen asked if Brooklyn Center offers a senior citizen rate, and the Public Works Coordinator stated Brooklyn Center is still among the lowest in the metropolitan area and does not offer a reduced rate to senior citizens. The Public Works Coordinator advised the Council that approving and implementing the recommendation to phase out the interest rate subsidy would increase the established water utility rates in 1992 from 63 cents per 1,000 gallons to 64 cents per 1,000 gallons, and in 1993 from 71 cents per 1,000 gallons to 73 cents per 1,000 gallons, and further advised the Council a resolution has been drafted and is provided for consideration this evening. REVIEW OF SANITARY SEWER RATES The Public Works Coordinator briefly reviewed the sanitary sewer utility anticipated capital improvements and advised the Council that staff had reviewed the currently scheduled sanitary sewer rates to determine their continued adequacy. Staff determined that the 1992 rates established in resolution No. 90 -248 will not adequately support expected 1992 expenditures. The sanitary sewer utility is expected to have a net operating loss in 1991 greater than was anticipated at this time last year, primarily due to charges from the 10/7/91 C7/4 -20- Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) being slightly higher than expected and the overtime, contractual repair and coil p other costs associated with the emer apsed main near lift station #1. gency repair of a She advised the Council that expenses for 1992 and 1993 are also expected to be higher than anticipated due to anticipated increased MWCC charges. The above - normal rainfall in 1991 has resulted in increased infiltration of storm water into the sanitary sewer system. This infiltration is metered along with the regular sewage flow and results in monthly bills high the MWCC. The City's MWCC charges represent about 75% of the utility's total operating expense. The Public Works Coordinator advised the Council the rate increases were established in scheduled to bran 1990 the g utility back to operating solvency by 1993. Given current projections of operating expenses, a slightly accelerated rate of increase would be required to achieve this goal. She added that operating solvency is especially important to the sanitary sewer utility given the capital expenditures anticipated over the next decade and the need to maintain a cash reserve. She recommended at minimum the utility needs to return to its goal of operating expenses equals operating revenues. The Public Works Coordinator presented a staff review of also possibly phasing out the use of interest earnings to subsidize the sanitary sewer utility rates. She pointed out that a study of the long -term effect shows that by the year 2000 the subsidy would result in a $2 quarterly differential in the residential quarterly rate, which is eight cents per 1,000 gallons; and added, however, phasing out the subsidy could increase cash reserves by as much as $90000 by year 2000. 0 The Public Works Coordinator recommended the sanitary sewer r ates continue to move the utility towards operating solvency by 1 93. She fu the rrecommended the interest earning subsidy be phased out at a rate of 20% each year. She added these recommendations would result in an increase in the residential quarterly sewer rate of $4.25 (a 13% increase) rather than the rate of $3.25 (a 10% increase) already approved. The Public Works Coordinator advised the Council resolutions have been drafted covering the two options and are provided for consideration this evening. REVIEW OF STORM DRAINAG UTILITY RATES The Public Works Coordinator briefly reviewed the proposed and estimated budgets of the storm drainage utility for the next five ears as well 1 as proposed and estimated rates to meet those budgets. She also reviewed the storm drainage utility current rate schedule as established in resolution No. 90 -246, and advised the Council of those that staff have conducted a study se rates to determine the ir e continued adequacy, and determined that the 3992 rates will not adequately support the expected 1992 expenditures. She pointed out the rate schedule made no provision for rate increases in 1992 or beyond, and revenue requirements are expected p to double as the City begins a program of repair or replacement of defective '' � 1017/91 -21. I sections of the drainage system and to construct new or upgrade the capacity of existing sections of the system. Two particular problem areas which have been brought to the Council's attention in the past year are drainage problems on 57th and 63rd Avenues. The Public Works Coordinator recommended the base rate be increased to $18 per acre in 1992 and to $24 per acre in 1993, and pointed out at the recommended rates are reasonable when compared to the rates of other metropolitan area cities. In response to concerns and questions raised by the Mayor and Council on this utility's rates ty and capital expenditures, the Public Works Director told the Council this utili is just one year old and staff has been working on improved project management and reporting of this utility. He further suggested the Council consider this utility on a year-by-year basis. The Public Works Coordinator added by this time next year the Council will be able to see exactly what the expenditures are year -by -year. She further pointed out most residents at public hearings, as well as those who call in regarding their statements, are very comfortable with explanations from the Public Works Department staff as to rates, capital expenditures, and reasons for repairs. The Public Works Coordinator advised the Council a resolution has been drafted and is provided for consideration this evening. The Mayor thanked the Public Works Coordinator for the presentations and information. The Director of Public Works recommended each utility rate schedule be acted cted upon RESOLUTION NO 91 -244 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RE OL TION NO. 91 -245 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 10/7/91 -22- RESOLUTION NO 91 -246 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption provision that the 1993 rates be brought before the Council for consideration again n t 19 3: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT POLICIES The City Manager suggested, and the Council members concurred, this agenda item should be put on the October 21, 1991, agenda in view of both the importance of the issue and the current late hour. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12:18 a.m. (October 8). Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Y Ma or Recorded and transcribed by: Peggy McNabb Northern Counties Secretarial Service lonl91 - 23 - MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 10, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Johnson and Mann had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26 1991 Chairperson Malecki noted that on page 2 of the minutes she had asked for comments from the neighbors. She stated that the minutes should indicate that she had stated that the public hearing was closed, but was responding to a desire on the part of one of the neighbors to ask a question. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the September 26, 1991 Planning Commission meeting s corrected. voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki g g P , Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, and Holmes. Voting against: none. Application No. 91019 (Condura Marketing Corporation) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to install and operate a Tires Plus store in the commercial building at 5927 John Martin Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet regarding Application No. 91019, attached). The Secretary added that the Zoning Ordinance has been modified since the early 1980's to prohibit the use of trailers for storage. He stated that staff have a concern about the effect of noise and appearance of the proposed repair shop on the Ethan Allen store to the west. The Secretary also pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance does not permit outside service activities in commercial zones. Commissioner Bernards asked why, in light of the concern regarding service bays, noise, etc., the proposed Tires Plus was not to be located on the east side of the building. The Secretary noted that there was also a restaurant in that direction which might be affected by the use and that the placement of the repair bays on 10 -10 -91 1 that side of the building would result in a loss of parking. In regard to parking, Commissioner Holmes asked whether there would be enough left on the site for future growth. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that the parking provided on the site was based on the old retail formula which required more spaces than the present formula. He stated that there is now some excess parking stalls on the property. Regarding the installation and storage of batteries, Commissioner Holmes asked if there were special codes that had to be observed in that regard. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that, to his knowledge, the repair shop would be classified as a hazardous occupancy under the building code. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the Firestone store and the Goodyear store near Brookdale were in the C2 zone. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Rod Krass, an attorney representing Condura Marketing Corporation, stated that they were basically in agreement with the staff report and the conditions proposed. He asked that batteries be added as an item to be provided at the store. He stated that Tires Plus does not do any oil changes. Regarding outside storage, Mr. Krass stated that Tires Plus was aware that this had been a problem in the past. He pointed out that the new store would actually have a storage capacity for 2,400 tires which is about twice as much as normal at their stores. Mr. Krass stated that they do have a problem with the condition that the bay doors be closed during the servicing of vehicles. He pointed out that there were no windows or doors on that side of the Ethan Allen building. He stated that he did not feel that leaving the bay doors open in the summertime would be a problem for people on the outside, but that keeping the doors closed would be a hardship for the people on the inside where it would get very hot. He stated that the noise emanating from the business would be less than some people might expect although there would be some noise associated with the electric ratchets. Mr. Krass then introduced Mr. Don Gullett of Condura Marketing who stated that they felt they could comply with all of the conditions except the one regarding keeping the doors closed during service of vehicles. He stated that he discussed this concern with the operations manager and that it was felt that air conditioning of the space would not work. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the applicant had talked to the neighbors. Mr. Gullett responded that they had not as yet, but that they could. He stated that Tires Plus is a good neighbor and that customers who come to Tires Plus often visit other shops or restaurants while they are waiting for tire service. Chairperson Malecki asked why the west side of the building was chosen for this operation. Mr. Doug Sinclair of Kraus Anderson Real Estate stated 10 -10 -91 2 t that the location within the building had been considered and that the west side was preferred partly because there was a solid wall on the Ethan Allen building and partly to preserve parking for the other tenant that might use the building. He stated that they also wanted to keep the shop away from the restaurant to the east. He indicated that they did not yet have a tenant for that other space. Mr. Rod Krass pointed out that, to his knowledge, other repair garages were not restricted as to the doors being opened or closed. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the batteries would be stored within the building. Mr. Gullett responded that they would follow EPA guidelines and the batteries would be stored in a manner so as to contain any acid if there was a spill. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91019 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Planning Commission how they felt about Condition No. 9 regarding the closing of the doors during service. Commissioner Bernards wondered if there might be a partial exemption from that condition during the summer months. Commissioner Ainas recommended a restriction limiting the opening of the doors to times when the temperature was over 80 degrees. Mr. Mike Dimond, of Cardinal Development, a representative of the applicant, stated that he would prefer that the temperature be lowered to 70 degrees since it could get quite hot inside the service bays when the temperature got over 70 degrees. The Secretary stated that the staff would not have the time and ability to monitor the operation to see that such a condition, based on temperature, was effectively enforced. He stated that the City has noise limitations in the industrial district and that basically noise is not supposed to be perceptible beyond the property line. The Secretary also pointed out that the notice of the public hearing went to the owner of the Ethan Allen property and not to the Ethan Allen store itself. Commissioner Holmes asked whether it was true that other repair shops were not restricted regarding the closing of service doors. The Secretary acknowledged this, but pointed out that they are not in the same situation only a few feet from a neighboring business. He stated that one of the primary concerns of the staff is that service should be done inside the building. He stated that staff were concerned about the possible impact on a neighboring business 10 -10 -91 3 from the noise of this operation. He concluded by saying that he did not recommend a regulation on the basis of outside temperature. Commissioner Bernards asked when the special use permit would be reviewed. The Secretary pointed out that, once the special use permit is granted, the City grants a property right to the property. He stated that the conditions have to be abided by, but that as long as they are, the permit would not be revoked. He stated that if this business generates complaints, the City might have to take noise measurements and check relative to state regulations regarding noise. He also suggested that the applicant approach Ethan Allen about the new business. Commissioner Bernards recommended that this be done before the application goes to the City Council. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there was a consensus regarding the freedom of the applicant to open or close the doors as they saw fit. The Commission generally agreed that that portion of the recommended conditions be deleted. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91019 (Condura Marketing Corporation) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend approval of Application No. 91019, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval b the City Engineer, prior to the PP Y Y g � P issuance of permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new parking and driving areas. 6. The special use permit is granted for a tire, battery and wheel related repair and service operation. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 10 -10 -91 4 7. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. There shall be no outside display of tires or other merchandise on the site except by the use of an Administrative Land Use Permit. 9. All vehicles serviced at the store shall be serviced inside the building. Vehicles not being serviced must be parked on the site in authorized parking spaces. No parking of vehicles is permitted in front of the service bays. 10. The use of trailers for storage of new or used tires or any other merchandise or materials is strictly prohibited. 11. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary noted that the Commission may want to direct the applicant to contact Ethan Allen prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Rod Krass stated that they would do that. APPLICATION NO. 91020 (Brooklyn Center Baptist Church) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel on which the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church and parsonage presently sit in order to sell off the church building to another congregation. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91020, attached). The Secretary also explained for the Commission the location of the fence on the overhead transparency. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the minimum area for a single family lot. The Secretary responded that the minimum area for an interior single family lot is 9,500 sq. ft. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Bud Sandberg, of Brooklyn Center Baptist Church, stated that he was not aware of the encroachment of the fence until that evening. He stated that they would notify the Korean Presbyterian Church about the encroachment and would resolve it as part of the closing on the property. Mr. Sandberg noted that the person living in the parsonage is the Baptist Church's Associate Pastor. He stated that the Korean Church may, in the future, want to buy that 10 -10 -91 5 house for their own purposes. He stated that they could either move the fence or take the fence down if the Korean Church preferred. He stated that their preference was to see that it was left in place, but that they would notify the Koreans. Commissioner Bernards asked where the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church congregation was moving to. Mr. Sandberg stated that they would probably locate on 93rd Avenue North between Zane and Noble in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the fence issue was something that would have to hold up the plat as long as it was understood that it was an encroachment at this time. Mr. Dale Lindberg, also of Brooklyn Center Baptist Church, stated that they would make the matter of the fence encroachment a part of the affidavit to the new congregation that would be buying the church. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 91020) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present to speak regarding the application. She asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Holmes seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary stated that they wanted to let people know about the encroachment, but that he did not suggest tearing out the landscaping in this area. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91020 (Brooklyn Center Baptist Church) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend approval of Application No. 91020, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary informed the Commission that they had scheduled a joint meeting with the City Council for October 17 and that the Council wanted to look at certain aspects of the Sign Ordinance and also some of the other discussion topics that were discussed at the last study meeting. He stated that the meeting would be limited to 9:30 p.m. There followed a brief discussion regarding service stations abutting residential property and also possible 10 -10 -91 6 redevelopment opportunities on Brooklyn Boulevard around 70th Avenue North. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Chairperson 10 -10 -91 7 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91019 Applicant: Condura Marketing Corp. Location: 5927 John Martin Dr. Request: Site and Building Plan/ Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to modify the commercial building at 5927 John Martin Drive (the old Burger Bros. building) to install and operate a Tires Plus store. The property in question is zoned C -2 and is bounded on the northeast by John Martin Drive, on the southeast by Perkins Restaurant, on the south by Group Health Dental and U.S. West Communications, and on the northwest by Ethan Allen. Auto repair shops are special uses in the C -2 zoning district. The proposed Tires Plus store is to replace the existing store at 69th and Brooklyn Blvd. which is being removed due to the reconstruction of 69th Ave. North. Access /Parking No access changes are proposed to the site. The applicant proposes a six bay repair shop. The parking requirement for a repair shop is three spaces for each repair bay, plus one space for each employee on the maximum shift, plus two spaces for service vehicles. With six employees, this facility will require 26 parking spaces. The retail parking requirement for the 4950 sq. ft. to be occupied by Tires Plus is 27.5 spaces. The site presently contains 85 parking spaces which exceeds the present retail parking requirement for the entire 10,490 sq. ft. building. The proposed use, therefore, will not impede the retail use of the remainder of the building. Landscaping The proposed site plan indicates the addition of 11 Pfitzer Junipers and 4 Japanese Greenleaf Barberry shrubs in planting beds immediately north and south of the service doors on the west side of the building. Other landscaping in this area is to be removed to allow for the construction of a driveway leading from the joint driveway shared with Ethan Allen to the service doors. The total point value of all existing and proposed landscaping is 224 points. The area of the site is 1.35 acres and the point requirement for this site under the Landscape Point System is 108 points. The plan, therefore, complies. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The plan proposes no change to the drainage pattern on the site. The new paved area west of the building will drain west into the 10 -10 -91 1 common drive and into two catch basins within that drive. Building The main change to the building will be the installation of six overhead doors on the west wall of the building. The northerly five doors will be 10' high and the southerly door will be 12' high. The plans also propose a showroom window on the north wall of the Tires Plus tenant space. The interior of the tenant space is to consist of a sales /showroom area on the north (front) , service bays in the middle, and a storage room for inventory on the south (rear). The storage room will have a capacity of 960 tires. There will also be racks to hold 320 tires in the service area. A loading dock near the southwest corner of the building will serve the storage area with delivery space. Lighting /Trash No lighting changes are proposed. The plan proposes two trash enclosures side by side to the rear of the building. One enclosure will be for recycled tires and one for discarded trash. The enclosures will be constructed of masonry to match the building. They will be 10 enclosures, 8' high. One concern with this application is that tires not be visible to the public. The existing store at 69th and Brooklyn Blvd. has utilized a trailer for storage since its inception and the City has gone to court to try to limit the outside storage of tires at this location. Special Use Standards The applicant's legal representative, Mr. Phillip Krass has submitted a brief letter addressing the special use standards contained in section 35 -220.2 (attached). In it, he states that the proposed tire store will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or comfort of the public. He also states that there should be no adverse impact on other properties. He notes that they expect no more than 30 to 40 customers daily, with approximately three to four per hour. Mr. Krass points out that the surrounding area is already developed and that, therefore, the tire shop will not impede the normal and orderly development of the area. Finally, Mr. Krass notes that ingress, egress, and parking have been provided and states that the tire store will generate less traffic than the use which it is replacing. Staff generally agree that the proposal can meet the standards for a special use permit. However, the possibility of open service doors and outside display would, we believe, have a detrimental effect on this commercial neighborhood. We would, therefore, recommend conditions of approval aimed at preventing noise and visual pollution from this use. It should also be clear in any 10 -10 -91 2 action of approval that the use of trailers for storage is strictly prohibited. Although service stations are allowed to have outside display of merchandise within four feet of the building, we do not believe such display would be compatible with the surrounding commercial area. Such display would, we believe, detract from the value of other properties in the neighborhood and would, therefore, violate the standards for a special use permit. Service of vehicles either outside or even with the overhead doors open would also have a similar detrimental effect. Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it appears that the standards for a special use permit can be met and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new parking and driving areas. 6. The special use permit is granted for a tire store providing wheel related services. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 7. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances,and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. There shall be no outside display of tires or other merchandise on the site except by the use of an Administrative Land Use Permit. 9. All vehicles serviced at the store shall be serviced inside the building with the doors closed. Vehicles not being serviced must be parked on the site in authorized parking spaces. No parking of vehicles is permitted in 10 -10 -91 3 front of the service bays. 10. The use of trailers for storage of new or used tires or any other merchandise or materials is strictly prohibited. 11. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. Submitted b Gary ShIcross Planner proved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning & Inspections 10 -10 -91 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91020 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Baptist Church Location: 5826 and 5840 Humboldt Ave. N. Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church property at the southeast corner of 59th and Humboldt Avenues North. The property in question is zoned R -1 and is bounded on the north by 59th Ave. N., on the east by a seven unit apartment building and two single family homes, on the south by other single family homes, and on the west by Humboldt. The church parsonage is presently on the same lot as the church building. The purpose of the subdivision is to divide off a separate lot for the parsonage. Upon completion of the subdivision, the church itself will be sold to another congregation. The proposed plat is to be known as Brooklyn Center Baptist Church Addition with two lots. Lot 1 is to be the church lot with an area of 124,999 sq. ft. or 2.87 acres. Lot 2 is to contain the single family home, and will be 80 131.9' for a total of 10,552 sq. ft. or .24 acre. There is a 20' wide utility easement which runs to the north and east of the single family lot and along the south side of the church property until it meets the north end of a cul -de -sac of Girard Ave. North. The City Engineer has recommended that 10' wide drainage and utility easements be dedicated along the property lines adjacent to Humboldt and 59th and that 5' wide easements be dedicated along interior property lines on the plat. Building locations on the plat are existing. No new construction is proposed at this time. There is, however, some confusion between the new property line location and the existing location of a fence which runs inside the church property along the entrance drive from Humboldt back to the area where the church has a garage. The arrangement of the fence gives the impression that the residence owns more land than it actually will under the proposed subdivision. We would recommend that the Commission discuss this matter with the applicant and ask how this confusion can be eliminated. Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 10 -10 -91 1 Submitted by, cam Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, �onal A. Warren Cj'd64o%A.#V".w- Director of Planning and Inspections I i I 10 -10 -91 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date ILO/ 21/91 Agenda ftem Number $Q. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91019 - Condura Marketing Corporation ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: 4000 Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection ******************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** P * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:, No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attache • Planning Commission Application No. 91019 is a request for site and PP q building plan and special use permit approval to install and operate a Tires Plus store in the commercial building at 5927 John Martin Drive. Attached are minutes, information sheet, map of the area, and various drawings of the site for the City Council's review. The special use permit required a public hearing by the Planning Commission which was held at their October 10, 1991 meeting. The City Council traditionally opens their meeting for public comment on matters that the Planning Commission has held a public hearing. We, therefore, sent notices of the City Council's consideration of this application to all those receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing. Recommendation This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its October 10, 1991 regular meeting and approval was recommended subject to the 11 conditions listed on pages 4 and 5 of the minutes from that meeting. • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 10, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Johnson and Mann had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26 1991 Chairperson Malecki noted that on page 2 of the minutes she had asked for comments from the neighbors. She stated that the minutes should indicate that she had stated that the public hearing was closed, but was responding to a desire on the part of one of the neighbors to ask a question. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the September 26, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, and Holmes. Voting against: none. Application No. 91019 (Condura Marketing Corporation) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to install and operate a Tires Plus store in the commercial building at 5927 John Martin Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet regarding Application No. 91019, attached). The Secretary added that the Zoning Ordinance has been modified since the early 1980's to prohibit the use of trailers for storage. He stated that staff have a concern about the effect of noise and appearance of the proposed repair shop on the Ethan Allen store to the west. The Secretary also pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance does not permit outside service activities in commercial zones. Commissioner Bernards asked why, in light of the concern regarding service bays, noise, etc., the proposed Tires Plus was not to be located on the east side of the building. The Secretary noted that there was also a restaurant in that direction which might be affected by the use and that the placement of the repair bays on 10 -10 -91 1 that side of the building would result in a loss of parking. In regard to parking, Commissioner Holmes asked whether there would be enough left on the site for future growth. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that the parking provided on the site was based on the old retail formula which required more spaces than the resent formula. P He stated that there is now some excess parking stalls on the property. Regarding the installation and storage of batteries, Commissioner Holmes asked if there were special codes that had to be observed in that regard. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that, to his knowledge, the repair shop would be classified as a hazardous occupancy under the building code. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the Firestone store and the Goodyear store near Brookdale were in the C2 zone. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Rod Krass, an attorney representing Condura Marketing Corporation, stated that they were basically in agreement with the staff report and the conditions proposed. He asked that batteries be added as an item to be provided at the store. He stated that Tires Plus does not do any oil changes. Regarding outside storage, Mr. Krass stated that Tires Plus was aware that this had been a problem in the past. He pointed out that the new store would actually have a storage capacity for 2,400 tires which is about twice as much as normal at their stores. Mr. Krass stated that they do have a problem with the condition that the bay doors be closed during the servicing of vehicles. He pointed out that there were no windows or doors on that side of the Ethan Allen building. He stated that he did not feel that leaving the bay doors open in the summertime would be a problem for people on the outside, but that keeping the doors closed would be a hardship for the people on the inside where it would get very hot. He stated that the noise emanating from the business would be less than some people might expect although there would be some noise associated with the electric ratchets. Mr. Krass then introduced Mr. Don Gullett of Condura Marketing who stated that they felt they could comply with all of the conditions except the one regarding keeping the doors closed during service of vehicles. He stated that he discussed this concern with the operations manager and that it was felt that air conditioning of the space would not work. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the applicant had talked to the neighbors. Mr. Gullett responded that they had not as yet, but that they could. He stated that Tires Plus is a good neighbor and that customers who come to Tires Plus often visit other shops or restaurants while they are waiting for tire service. Chairperson Malecki asked why the west side of the building was chosen for this operation. Mr. Doug Sinclair of Kraus Anderson Real Estate stated 10 -10 -91 2 that the location within the building had been considered and that the west side was preferred partly because there was a solid wall on the Ethan Allen building and partly to preserve parking for the other tenant that might use the building. He stated that they also wanted to keep the shop away from the restaurant to the east. He indicated that they did not yet have a tenant for that other space. Mr. Rod Krass pointed out that, to his knowledge, other repair garages were not restricted as to the doors being opened or closed. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the batteries would be stored within the building. Mr. Gullett responded that they would follow EPA guidelines and the batteries would be stored in a manner so as to contain any acid if there was a spill. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91019) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Planning Commission how they felt about Condition No. 9 regarding the closing of the doors during service. Commissioner Bernards wondered if there might be a partial exemption from that condition during the summer months. Commissioner Ainas recommended a restriction limiting the opening of the doors to times when the temperature was over 80 degrees. Mr. Mike Dimond, of Cardinal Development, a representative of the applicant, stated that he would prefer that the temperature be lowered to 70 degrees since it could get quite hot inside the service bays when the temperature got over 70 degrees. The Secretary stated that the staff would not have the time and ability to monitor the operation to see that such a condition, based on temperature, was effectively enforced. He stated that the City has noise limitations in the industrial district and that basically noise is not supposed to be perceptible beyond the property line. The Secretary also pointed out that the notice of the public hearing went to the owner of the Ethan Allen property and not to the Ethan Allen store itself. Commissioner Holmes asked whether it was true that other repair shops were not restricted regarding the closing of service doors. The Secretary acknowledged this, but pointed out that they are not in the same situation only a few feet from a neighboring business. He stated that one of the primary concerns of the staff is that service should be done inside the building. He stated that staff were concerned about the possible impact on a neighboring business 10 -10 -91 3 from the noise of this operation. He concluded by saying that he did not recommend a regulation on the basis of outside temperature. Commissioner Bernards asked when the special use permit would be reviewed. The Secretary pointed out that, once the special use permit is granted, the City grants a property right to the property. He stated that the conditions have to be abided by, but that as long as they are, the permit would not be revoked. He stated that if this business generates complaints, the City might have to take noise measurements and check relative to state regulations regarding noise. He also suggested that the applicant approach Ethan Allen about the new business. Commissioner Bernards recommended that this be done before the application goes to the City Council. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there was a consensus regarding the freedom of the applicant to open or close the doors as they saw fit. The Commission generally agreed that that portion of the recommended conditions be deleted. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91019 (Condura Marketing Corporation) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend approval of Application No. 91019, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new parking and driving areas. 6. The special use permit is granted for a tire, battery and wheel related repair and service operation. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 10 -10 -91 4 7. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. There shall be no outside display of tires or other P Y merchandise on the site except by the use of an Administrative Land Use Permit. 9. All vehicles serviced at the store shall be serviced inside the building. Vehicles not being serviced must be parked on the site in authorized parking spaces. No parking of vehicles is permitted in front of the service bays. 10. The use of trailers for storage of new or used tires or any other merchandise or materials is strictly prohibited. 11. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary noted that the Commission may want to direct the applicant to contact Ethan Allen prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Rod Krass stated that they would do that. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91019 Applicant: Condura Marketing Corp. Location: 5927 John Martin Dr. Request: Site and Building Plan/ Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to modify the commercial building at 5927 John Martin Drive (the old Burger Bros. building) to install and operate a Tires Plus store. The property in question is zoned C -2 and is bounded on the northeast by John Martin Drive, on the southeast by Perkins Restaurant, on the south by Group Health Dental and U.S. West Communications, and on the northwest by Ethan Allen. Auto repair shops are special uses in the C -2 zoning district. The proposed Tires Plus store is to replace the existing store at 69th and Brooklyn Blvd. which is being removed due to the reconstruction of 69th Ave. North. Access/ Parking No access changes are proposed to the site. The applicant proposes a six bay repair shop. The parking requirement for a repair shop is three spaces for each repair bay, plus one space for each employee on the maximum shift, plus two spaces for service vehicles. With six employees, this facility will require 26 parking spaces. The retail parking requirement for the 4950 sq. ft. to be occupied by Tires Plus is 27.5 spaces. The site presently contains 85 parking spaces which exceeds the present retail parking requirement for the entire 10,490 sq. ft. building. The proposed use, therefore, will not impede the retail use of the remainder of the building. Landscaping The proposed site plan indicates the addition of 11 Pfitzer Junipers and 4 Japanese Greenleaf Barberry shrubs in planting beds immediately north and south of the service doors on the west side of the building. Other landscaping in this area is to be removed to allow for the construction of a driveway leading from the joint driveway shared with Ethan Allen to the service doors. The total point value of all existing and proposed landscaping is 224 points. The area of the site is 1.35 acres and the point requirement for this site under the Landscape Point System is 108 points. The plan, therefore, complies. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The plan proposes no change to the drainage pattern on the site. The new paved area west of the building will drain west into the 10 -10 -91 1 common drive and into two catch basins within that drive. Building The main change to the building will be the installation of six overhead doors on the west wall of the building. The northerly five doors will be 10' high and the southerly door will be 12' high. The plans also propose a showroom window on the north wall of the Tires Plus tenant space. The interior of the tenant space is to consist of a sales /showroom area on the north (front), service bays in the middle, and a storage room for inventory on the south (rear). The storage room will have a capacity of 960 tires. There will also be racks to hold 320 tires in the service area. A loading dock near the southwest corner of the building will serve the storage area with delivery space. LightingJTrash No lighting changes are proposed. The plan proposes two trash enclosures side by side to the rear of the building. One enclosure will be for recycled tires and one for discarded trash. The enclosures will be constructed of masonry to match the building. They will be 10 enclosures, 8' high. One concern with this application is that tires not be visible to the public. The existing store at 69th and Brooklyn Blvd. has utilized a trailer for storage since its inception and the City has gone to court to try to limit the outside storage of tires at this location. Special Use Standards The applicant's legal representative, Mr. Phillip Krass has submitted a brief letter addressing the special use standards contained in section 35 -220.2 (attached). In it, he states that the proposed tire store will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or comfort of the public. He also states that there should be no adverse impact on other properties. He notes that they expect no more than 30 to 40 customers daily, with approximately three to four per hour. Mr. Krass points out that the surrounding area is already developed and that, therefore, the tire shop will not impede the normal and orderly development of the area. Finally, Mr. Krass notes that ingress, egress, and parking have been provided and states that the tire store will generate less traffic than the use which it is replacing. Staff generally agree that the proposal can meet the standards for a special use permit. However, the possibility of open service doors and outside display would, we believe, have a detrimental effect on this commercial neighborhood. We would, therefore, recommend conditions of approval aimed at preventing noise and visual pollution from this use. It should also be clear in any 10 -10 -91 2 action of approval that the use of trailers for storage is strictly prohibited. Although service stations are allowed to have outside display of merchandise within four feet of the building, we do not believe such display would be compatible with the surrounding commercial area. Such display would, we believe, detract from the value of other properties in the neighborhood and would, therefore, violate the standards for a special use permit. Service of vehicles either outside or even with the overhead doors open would also have a similar detrimental effect. Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it appears that the standards for a special use permit can be met and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new parking and driving areas. 6. The special use permit is granted for a tire store providing wheel related services. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 7. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. There shall be no outside display of tires or other merchandise on the site except by the use of an Administrative Land Use Permit. 9. All vehicles serviced at the store shall be serviced inside the building with the doors closed. Vehicles not being serviced must be parked on the site in authorized parking spaces. No parking of vehicles is permitted in 10 -10 -91 3 front of the service bays. 10. The use of trailers for storage of new or used tires or any other merchandise or materials is strictly prohibited. 11. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. Submitted by, Gary Sha lcross Planner proved by, , r C A. Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning & Inspections 10 -10 -91 4 DEVELOPMENT • LEASING • MA- NAGENIENT October 14, 1991 Mr. Douglas Fischer President Ethan Allen Interiors 5939 John Martin Drive G Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Proposed Tires Plus Store Dear Doug: To follow -up our conversation last Friday, this letter will confirm that, upon your review of the proposed development of the Tires Plus store in the adjacent "Burger Bros." building, you do not anticipate any problems to occur relating to the potential noise emanating from the building. This would apply to those months during the late spring, summer and early Fall when Tires Plus would be performing its installation of tires with the bay doors to its service facility open. As we discussed, we would certainly hope that, if you encountered any problems, you would communicate them to Tires Plus, as I am sure that Tires Plus is intent on being a goad neighbor and would do everything in its power to alleviate any problem which would occur. Thanks for your time to discuss this matter. Sincerely, ( _X]RAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY Dou g la W. Sinclair r' Leasing Specialist DW3 /kes cc. Dennis G. Diessner Vice - President Leasing Don Gullett Condura Marketing, Inc. (operator of Tires Plus) Eton Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- . ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. ABBOTTAVE t ` ZENITH AVE. t4 > - �� � �-' -, ��F• �, � YORK AVE. L1 l ��i I�i 111 v ti �, r V \•„ __ XERIES AVE. N. WA,SHBURN UqN. •-- YINCINI r ' `� ' `� Q o D VI NCENT AVE N. 1. <� z rT RUSS LL A N. QUEEN AVE. N. b�♦ " 8 a .; �'� Jc� j`� �. + ` 4 „ `' la "PENNAVE.1 --- OLIVER AVE. ON A P° �— \/ �p EARLE R \ ♦�P -� BROWN MO G a IAORGAN AVE � J,. SUWIT Rq LOGAN AV. I OGAN AVE. N. - ♦ �� KNOX AVE. N. , I I 1 V ►� ♦? �f I �M- EARLE ROMN OR� > +� _-- Uri _'_ .-'-' VE. N. V �� • , �r�� ` ^l N -Y - VI I l._ ll , ��lIU11UplDT f A f 1 F N!1 7 ununrn nT nrr .. ..� .' ♦ `. %``� \ ---- - ' 1 I�f Ya o o .w. ao o7 T._ cNaccao cam. reoJacy 4" 6.1"4 L WJb navitioNa IY uv+>. f- N ( yR�ryi�N� VTJb- I ctvr.�Nn) L �I I L L / n map M me W.. TF �IfS, or y e °s tnai rcn act HSi c$ duly r•piaterae e m a SI•te of M�NJrae•A P'W't'a ° � 7 3 AWµ7ivlJlyd. Oi-� y .ro R LA d� z ne° N, arb (f:Y.FaT rnp.ww) kX. LbYysCM� iK 4 N -MAtN GUAM! (L)J �K, T � -• . u''rT�- 6�bi2 Pr �� �' ► s � I r � °^ [[tcta�cy,Up�� s'id � r<.�i t,uur � L{r2pNE aE aA B. I ► � � — 3rza.JptW . e +, Z � ) ae ioav y,iwa RAN L y w k architects lus e,u�u ,mot£.. i . P r / fariba third . n � � zny faribault,minn. 8£3M M 55021 s)Jb p- • nn ronn y � 5 N a a.enxr u. yr -a ,ono a,e *t E — (4)Jb �i EXIST iMG �Y Py ter„e e. L.KsT r� u (be) LAUS.tApF - n• , i 1 z 4 pes+ts �� DFfIONEO D.F" i w3PN[xT u I Dnewx Ilse O 1 PVBGD6FlLVtlo 1s71iD9 1AL3aRENT PACn) OHECnED DJ" _ PPOJE� Q �lllEfl� FDmrExrI' ASElLO N3 .Ip:o. n[nflOxf (R[W3RFe DED3C�TE0 CIRCV 31) O �R Ho n_uun° fE xo [oN) b',n I ;o , I 19 1. 4 E 2 19 �. 3 19 ;4 , 4 ILO HE3DHT Q, �FrEen�_vE tTFnE eAUHCFnI clxr� t'v Cts1^mW ILS^ - I� -4^ Roil so.iiiorT -�,�- : .I N.c. iN L16 7 - 30 O[ tmt17T� DARE w xDEn) PB _. I _ tY R ° A °I16HioH1,[PR[PN. _ pl,n w„ PreP,raE M me IroTaR � bw-E � r mY a rec, ..cer F "D T avn_�EPIEe_ I.I �y4 �sAtES �rnpF -�W; °° ., °e:n,l —.1 Aln fuvvu. ,:a TITo INDER) PRI t —•. I"1 16 y "Q_� .' • r -V app r y r a , I � ar IM lewd p _ -0 r Sl,te PI M�uNE•xf9 Ol NOF wrN e E� Ifni °E LATHFI , , R,Ae E, je _ _ i ,eY IC I L�u1t�AL IE NF ,J NP[ s1 �i T i FFDEP OFAP 1g1CR6 R 116 AC /DC O 0 �86 E pE Md 1 , L R a' —E) fUVVLT OHO P,. IN BENG1 { Pea. No. 94flb -t o,le _ R psi L / �. i EiE n,ne -+ [LE ENT: YJP /,e0, f MBE - - - --- eN Pvlrw r¢ w,: ere Le. 1 Q T,nr e IQlA9E._PdA ii [D BY GENERAL Y. -b' _ _ __ r J _ O [coH GENER ov of R t, —LED BY D GENE RAL ACtOP /ELEC. TLMMti.�K.E- I I i a+ p I b L -IOS I ' Fl. 1Ld-d •F 1 _ IMP EL Cb I o0 I I'o' . . 29_' -_4 . Zq iJ I 4 � -_ i FL1U+_ i Yl✓ifPF/i 1- -- - 4L1W � 12' -0" a' q -loF O ti.Td•4' yH'I'I'e' rao of oA ti m -a, P LLB I lY OcG+.IR4�yy vesxpailgJ �ER? I,LSA I t �Y1 X 4�A E .�� JJ //..ij•1Kz]arJl E W I A8D'Je� 1p P / - ♦ u1w 1 i P'.,sEit� Rp7F�N Y- �, architects plus 12 n. e. third st. r faribault minn. \ 1 Ilip ?Mfb i Fx 3�MIgI� bu I Ew °ROnet 1N � �M dIItUA4 �woc I � Eyb�o' I ►il -bE v'r 1--1 p /1 ?lT /1 14 /F- /L- )/ -_)•1 B_lo b'•A° o.,fw. Jb 17.11 —JECr !491 ,e L � w•o...e e �,�,� 1 )) ( In super - �� /'+� 0 feel 1 -�� $lef[ 01 levee 1 ,ne � �IJ4k50Tp rl I I I I 111 III 1 I '; I' 2�� � /�J Y ne° .o °Ff1Fi Ili l III 1 A f.7 I 1 . 1' �I JI V III . I1li I ' I lllli 1 11 I II IIII III uI pI�0 t`I ; :. �ild4 I ' Ill � Bow I r.[.fid fl« I II � I I Ili III 7 �� woe' wv![ i �Dur�l W�1 elkvA 1011 5ute V — ga.l., IZE�I�.6 c^ �xIST D:4a. ';I ' X 11 N' IIII l d4 ( ype pw 1, IpI II 111 eTP xlefIL IIII (IIII L, .�1 Il Illj': PEIe Pli.41 VIII �I!'lII II 111111111 ill Il I II I I��jII J I' ' h III �iil c..�. orf e� I I I I I III __ Jrl I II I I. III6 I'I I I �1 I I �I I I� I I Evi Mi j — :o e• �I c � 5 J4 / T T Ili III III i ll l� III1IllI 11j 1 I I ` D vI Co - 2 . 5 cll T4 (� ;fj Wri. WY T"��. �1: b .,FP uo1 o.IJ.DongZ 'l�I� � u( II O�I o AcD - - - -- - — ev.w� °• v" �_ r des n�:wu �Cxssjti. (v f 5) 12' 1I Re7n1L Watt – – - - -- – u1 a i u T a+s – a' aeD e�k 1 DooR k; LAC�TE*7 -- – – – – –� o j � �w�Kj'ti �,l,�i�WeSr - �- 1eya7'rar! F=— 4el I wyau.f. H architects plus 5 "u rG S yy -- 12 n.e. third st. A U faribault, m inn. safe _ v4T�pel�4 99 IN 55021 E c,.[ � d I' 1 I – — I I I �II�IIUIIII�I'I : lei �I� ! �� IUII�IIppl I I 1 I III III' nw M OI I FLL �� �I � (Iljl � 1I ,1 1 A � (n��i�T4� 'rI� e><ISTI,� e%IS71N11 G11I Z = °' 4�' � � � * 4wz exjckloe el.WajlolJS -feat Rk o5ljke (4orkAS1 ELFvAT(onl P . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/21/ Agenda hem Number 06 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91020 - Brooklyn Center Baptist Church DEPT. APPROV 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 g ) • Planning Commission Application No. 91020 is a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel on which the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church and the parsonage presently sit in order to sell off the church building to another congregation. Attached are minutes, information sheet, map of the area, and a copy of the preliminary plat for the City Council's review. This preliminary plat application required a public hearing by the Planning Commission which was held at their October 10, 1991 meeting. The City Council traditionally opens their meeting for public comment on matters that the Planning Commission has held a public hearing. We have, therefore, sent notices of the City Council's consideration of this application to all those receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing. Recommendation This application was reviewed by the Planning' Commission at its October 10, 1991 regular meeting and approval was recommended subject to the two conditions listed on page 6 of the minutes from that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 91020 (Brooklyn Center Baptist Church) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel on which the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church and parsonage presently sit in order to sell off the church building to another congregation. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91020, attached). The Secretary also explained for the Commission the location of the fence on the overhead transparency. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the minimum area for a single family lot. The Secretary responded that the minimum area for an interior single family lot is 9,500 sq. ft. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Bud Sandberg, of Brooklyn Center Baptist Church, stated that he was not aware of the encroachment of the fence until that evening. He stated that they would notify the Korean Presbyterian Church about the encroachment and would resolve it as part of the closing on the property. Mr. Sandberg noted that the person living in the parsonage is the Baptist Church's Associate Pastor. He stated that the Korean Church may, in the future, want to buy that 10 -10 -91 5 house for their own purposes. He stated that they could either move the fence or take the fence down if the Korean Church preferred. He stated that their preference was to see that it was left in place, but that they would notify the Koreans. Commissioner Bernards asked where the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church congregation was moving to. Mr. Sandberg stated that they would probably locate on 93rd Avenue North between Zane and Noble in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the fence issue was something that would have to hold up the plat as long as it was understood that it was an encroachment at this time. Mr. Dale Lindberg, also of Brooklyn Center Baptist Church, stated that they would make the matter of the fence encroachment a part of the affidavit to the new congregation that would be buying the church. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91020) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present to speak regarding the application. She asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Holmes seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary stated e y t d that the wanted to let people kn ow about the Y P P encroachment, but that he did not suggest tearing out the landscaping in this area. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91020 (Brooklyn Center Baptist Church) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend approval of Application No. 91020, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary informed the Commission that they had scheduled a joint meeting with the City Council for October 17 and that the Council wanted to look at certain aspects of the Sign Ordinance and also some of the other discussion topics that were discussed at the last study meeting. He stated that the meeting would be limited to 9:30 p.m. There followed a brief discussion regarding service stations abutting residential property and also possible 10 -10 -91 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91020 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Baptist Church Location: 5826 and 5840 Humboldt Ave. N. Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church property at the southeast corner of 59th and Humboldt Avenues North. The property in question is zoned R -1 and is bounded on the north by 59th Ave. N., on the east by a seven unit apartment building and two single family homes, on the south by other single family homes, and on the west by Humboldt. The church parsonage is presently on the same lot as the church building. The purpose of the subdivision is to divide off a separate lot for the parsonage. Upon completion of the subdivision, the church itself will be sold to another congregation. The proposed plat is to be known as Brooklyn Center Baptist Church Addition with two lots. Lot 1 is to 'be the church lot with an area of 124,999 sq. ft. or 2.87 acres. Lot 2 is to contain the single family home, and will be 80 131.9' for a total of 10,552 sq. ft. or .24 acre. There is a 20' wide utility easement which runs to the north and east of the single family lot and along the south side of the church property until it meets the north end of a cul -de -sac of Girard Ave. North. The City Engineer has recommended that 10' wide drainage and utility easements be dedicated along the property lines adjacent to Humboldt and 59th and that 5' wide easements be dedicated along interior property lines on the plat. Building locations on the plat are existing. No new construction is proposed at this time. There is, however, some confusion between the new property line location and the existing location of a fence which runs inside the church property along the entrance drive from Humboldt back to the area where the church has a garage. The arrangement of the fence gives the impression that the residence owns more land than it actually will under the proposed subdivision. We would recommend that the Commission discuss this matter with the applicant and ask how this confusion can be eliminated. Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 10 -10 -91 1 i Submitted by, Gary Sha lcross Planner roved by, C4 onald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspections 10 -10 -91 2 1 - -- -x, AVE:;` ^;y''X�.,;�:�� •, N ` -�''�1 - :;: ,• ,: _ ROSS LL AVE. j �i X L — ffO UEEN AVE. N. •�q, FA I�. PENN 0 C� - rS OLIV dot D !!0 NZ / / LL�� ---- LA W N E N - ` E AVE r N. Op ' f \<^ EARL BROWN I �L� M G A E. J MORGAN AVE 1 \] 1J _j SUMMIT DR) �1 LLOGANtj E N � l []=I11 -� n I r r r �r+ox AvE _ _ 11J EARLE OWN DR. - -� JAMES I VE. N. JAMES AVE. N. } ( (P) _-� J N iLl_I_II PIRVI LN C]I f T ��� Y ` i "l - T - HUMBOLDT A E ,5� i HUMDOLD AVE. '- - 1 = �- GIRARD AVE. N.,1� GIRARD AVE. N. ��• GIRARD AVE. 1 QIlIIIII[IIIDJ FTl TTTTTTTT I TiT 9 -� FREMONT AVE. N. 'LFREM AVE. N y �- -- �TTIIIII� [-I 1 T1�� TTT T i�1Tl _ I( ffffl ; fT1111111 mffm IIlTJ } �L - ,T,T„ r,, EMERSON AVE. N [IlTiil(ll -- L 1 j EMERSON_AVE. MUM - o O Go") �Tr _ tUPONT M ` _ DUPONT F— PCOLFA m 1 COLFAX AVE. N. GDLFAX Z F�� DRY ANT AVE. N. � Z --- L� - - _ � --- - - ' I BRYANT AVE. Nj - - 1 O na ' ata ___ }--� ALDRICH AVE A l 594n. V414.1,00AVEN" t ` ' �;P_ z - _,rl. B4f. oq el 6�v. 70 —.s r z . A -1.01411ZC14 5/1;d - alw N 6 B44 U • ETA f ' T , lip" Ja- 4 ' P I T jj A 7 0 I M 'wl "". IV % P 4L V 14 U • C 14 ? a �t ��•A,f � 2 rr' 1 �`S r pia" t �, s' o° :r 3 � 1� '�- � ', ��� y �• }�.1�' � � 's'•� r F'� � � '�� h Y{ a � r ` C �� � � Wl! ­I T' . x{ RR 0 C u 1 . 4 1 L 5 . / �' 4i ELEcrqle sox T7 4A C::ZDY' ok El. S42'r 1 7 151 M 6. el. 0#0. 76 10 r fill Ica K 61 el#570 -dAIC va FENCE fEveZ re 7 ror o o-Elf"V4 IN fCAIC,' ?� � - �llYluf EASEM E N ) r ey'r. Aqe fjwm ew FENCE ON W4f r I's 13q 90 P#S vo f-I q4.4 aw i.Wr r ­' E/ EfS 494.70 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting ate 1 g Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH DEPT. APPROVAL: r Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this s re P ort Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Aes • Previous City Council Action Planning Commission Application No. 91020, preliminary plat for BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION, appears as an earlier item on the agenda for this Council meeting. The applicant has requested that the Council consider both preliminary and final plat at this meeting, and on the basis of the application being relatively uncomplicated, staff has presented both steps of the plat approval "process" simultaneously. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions outlined on the attached memorandum. As noted in the memo, all conditions have been met, however, the tight time schedule for consideration of this application has not given staff the opportunity to specifically react to a title opinion. Satisfaction of the condition relating to Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances includes a favorable tile opinion on behalf of the City, and staff will not present the final plat document for signature until such opinion is received. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION This plat is recommended for approval, subject to the prior approval of Planning Commission Application No. 91020, preliminary plat for BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION, and a favorable title opinion on behalf of the City. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY :BR00 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 DATE: October 17, 1991 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works RE: Final Plat - BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION At its October 10, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended Application No. 91020, BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. As of this date, the conditions have been met. Accordingly, I recommend approval of the final plat - BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION. Sincerely, Mark J. Mal ey, PE City Engineer �,TYN 19B6ALLAAIEPoCACRY � r `� BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM d •ly "t ji r t9 4'.6i su;w,,;VT kii... 3 59TH AVENUE NORTH ...... .......... C." C,- n, J,­ 0 Z ko w ht,,"—�tl, �f 11— lil 1-1 11 — L 0 ty C Y' p _ 0 m "ay tit jL-o jp --q CtrV MIWIL OF BROOMYN CWIFR, Ry P awmry M NA) 111BLIC UMI— MI—IMM, W-1,1 Ill C—ty. M-1 I I 1,,,—by c—tay Mit, I— 11y,11,11 O1_ -d J th is 'Ir It SIMCy DIVIS11m, C, —ay. .1 --a 1. MO.I. s"". —.. Im this pl"I I.ry If. 1—,—, 11 ....... ... I,, rr:rnty .r w.psernr art I'rl Ls, 11 ............ ...... I . SCALE IN FEET: 'll. � . c-11,11 l"VIVA 0 50 100 150 200 230 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meetiag Date 10-21 -9I Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: TOBACCO FREE POLICY DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn le Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUI MARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Attached is a tobacco free oli drafted b City of Brooklyn Center employees, and our approval P cY Y tY Yn Y PP of the policy and related implementation expenses is requested. BACKGROUND • Employee safety committee reviewed an employee concern regarding the hazards of second- hand smoke in City facilities. • Safety committee's subcommittee on policies and standards drafted a tobacco free policy (dated 3/27/91) but recommended obtaining employee input. • The city manager recruited and appointed an ad hoc committee to review and make recommendations on the drafted policy. Committee members represented all nine City facilities, as well as tobacco users and nonusers. • The ad hoc committee commissioned an employee survey to poll City personnel on their views related to tobacco use in the work place. • The ad hoc committee recommended approval of the proposed tobacco free policy with some changes and developed an implementation plan. HIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED POLICY • • Purpose is to create a safe, clean, and healthy environment. • Use of any tobacco product is prohibited in all buildings and vehicles owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center. • Applies to all employees and all members of the public • Effective three months after approval (if approved on October 21 by the city council, recommended effective date is February 1, 1992). PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • • Hold employee information meetings to convey the policy to supervisors, tobacco users, and employees in general. Work with American Lung Association in presenting these meetings. • Provide information to tobacco users on types of available cessation programs. Note: employees are not being asked to quit their tobacco use; they are being required to refrain from their use in City buildings and vehicles.) • Establish a reimbursement program in which the City reimburses up to $100 per employee for the cost of participating in cessation programs. • Post signs at entrances to all City facilities indicating the prohibition of tobacco use. PROGRAM COSTS • A one -time anticipated expense of approximately $5,000 to fund employees' participation in tobacco use cessation programs. (Employees would have a one -year period in which to take advantage of this offer.) This expense can be absorbed in the 1991 and 1992 city manager's office's budget for professional services. • American Lung Association fees of about $300 for assistance in conveying the policy to employee groups at special meetings. • Building signs at entrances to all City facilities indicating the tobacco free environment. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed tobacco free policy dated 7/17/91. • Memo to the city manager from the ad hoc committee dated July 31, 1991. • Original draft of the tobacco free policy dated 3/27/91. • Summary of ad hoc committee meeting action. • Memo to City employees from the city manager regarding membership on the ad hoc committee. • Background memo on hazards of tobacco use. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve the tobacco free policy, set February 1, 1992, as the policy's effective date, and approve funding for implementation. DRAFT 7/17/91 TOBACCO FREE POLICY I. STANDARD PURPOSE: To create a safe, clean, and healthy environment for employees and the public who access City of Brooklyn Center buildings and vehicles. Smoking or use of any other tobacco product is prohibited in all buildings and vehicles owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center. II. DEFINITION (A) "Employees" include all full -time, part -time, seasonal, and volunteer City employees. (B) "Public" includes all contractors, clients, visitors, and every other person. (C) "Smoking" is defined as carrying or possessing any lighted tobacco product including cigars, cigarettes, and pipes. (D) "Buildings and vehicles owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center" include, but are not limited to, city hall, community center, city garage, golf course clubhouse, liquor stores, Earle Brown Heritage Center, well houses, enclosed park buildings, lift stations, storage garages, fire stations, and all automobiles, i trucks, and other enclosed cab equipment owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center. III. SCOPE This standard applies to all City employees and every other member of the public. Supervisors and employees are responsible for enforcement of this standard. All employees are subject to progressive discipline provisions of City ordinances, labor agreements, or other City policies. IV. LIMITATION This standard is effective three months after approval by the city manager. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM.- Ad Hoc Committee /Tobacco Free Policy Joel Downer Kim Hover Joe Ericksen Sue Rice Jean Mueller Cheryl Cameron Gary Giving Dick Neuman Darrell Meehan Geralyn Barone DATE: July 31, 1991 SUBJECT- Recommendation on Tobacco Free Policy After several meetings with much deliberation and receiving employee input, we recommend your approval of the attached tobacco free policy for the City of Brooklyn Center. Related to the policy, we offer the implementation components described in this memo with the intention of approaching as smooth a transition as possible to a tobacco free environment. Our rationale for the direction we suggest is also discussed. TO FREE POLICY We surveyed all full -time and part -time City personnel and received 173 responses. An overwhelming majority endorsed the original policy as recommended by the safety committee or that policy with certain amendments to it. With this information in hand, we used the drafted policy as a starting point and discussed each provision. We conscientiously decided on a uniform policy for all employees and facilities because we felt once one exception was made to the policy, more would follow and the policy would become diluted. Tobacco vs. smoke free policy We feel that since the policy is one related to safety, it should encompass all tobacco products. Locations where use of tobacco products is prohibited There were several issues addressed regarding at which locations the use of tobacco products should be banned. Because of the prohibitive cost in providing a designated smoking area with an independent air exchange system in every facility, we chose to recommend prohibiting the use of tobacco products in all facilities. Much of our discussion focused on whether or not to bar tobacco use in vehicles. Several options to accommodate the users were openly debated, including permitting smoking /chewing when the user is alone in a vehicle or when none of the nonusers object to the use of a tobacco product; allowing each department to set its own policy related to tobacco use in vehicles; and maintaining the status quo. Since there already are many employee groups who are confined Memo to Gerald G. Splinter Page 2 July 29, 1991 to work stations where smoking is forbidden (city hall, community center, Earle Brown Heritage Center) and these employees have an opportunity to smoke on break and at lunch time, we agreed the best policy is to prohibit all tobacco use in vehicles because employees who are confined to the vehicles for much of the work day still have a chance to use tobacco on their breaks just as other employee groups do right now. We also discussed the section of the proposed policy that would prohibit tobacco use within SO feet of entranceways to City facilities. Since this provision seems unrelated to safety concerns, could be difficult to enforce, and would create undue hardships at some facilities (especially the Heritage Center), this section was completely deleted. The definition of "entranceway" was also excised because it becomes meaningless with the deletion of the prohibition section. There was a proposal to extend the policy to all City property, including the parks and trails, but this was defeated. Scope We made housekeeping changes to the "Scope" section to clarify it. Limitation We are recommending the effective date of the policy to be set for three months after you have approved it and it has been communicated to employees. Format There was a proposal to establish the policy more formally by codifying it as a part of the City ordinances. We suggest implementation as a policy initially, and if severe enforcement difficulties arise, an ordinance could be considered in the future. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In our discussions, we realized it is impossible to please everyone when dealing with an issue as controversial as use of tobacco products. With this in mind, we recommend the following plan to ensure a positive approach, widespread acknowledgement of, and, as much as possible, acceptance of the policy. Step One - Supervisors Training Session In order for any policy to be successful, there must be support from an organization's top managers and supervisors. We feel it is critical to inform and orient the department heads and supervisors about the policy, how it may affect their employees, what their responsibilities are, and the consequences for not following through on these responsibilities. The session may include some educational information regarding what it takes to quit using tobacco products. Attendance should be mandatory. Step Two - Employee Training Session We believe there is a need to bring employees together when the policy is disseminated so Memo to Gerald G. Splinter Page 3 July 29, 1991 everyone receives the same information about the policy and its implementation. There should be support of the policy shown by the administration, and employees can be informed about their responsibilities related to the policy at this time. Attendance should be mandatory. Hopefully the American Lung Association will be available to make a brief presentation about what to expect when people reduce or eliminate the use of tobacco products, what cessation programs are available, and what the nonusers might do to support those making a lifestyle transition related to their use of tobacco. Step Three - Resource Fair There are a host of tobacco use cessation programs available, and to better inform our employees who are interested in such programs, we suggest holding several resource fairs. The various providers can set up booths /tables, and employees can talk with the providers on a walk- ' in basis to find out which programs might best suit the needs of the individual employees. Attendance at the resource fair should be voluntary. Step Four - Reimbursement Program There are some expenses involved in the cessation programs, and we are recommending a cost - sharing plan by the City and employees who wish to participate in such programs. We suggest that the City reimburse up to $100 per employee for the cost of the cessation programs. This would apply to full -time and part -time employees who work for the City at the time of implementation. The reimbursement would be available for a one-year period only, ending one year after the implementation date. The City's contribution can be used for one or more programs by an individual employee, but the total reimbursement shall not exceed $100. We did not come to a consensus on whether or not employees could attend the cessation programs on City time or on their own time, so this issue should be resolved prior to implementation of the policy. RECOMMENDATION We recommend your favorable approval of the tobacco free policy as presented, along with the four -step implementation plan. If you approve of the policy and would like our assistance on any of the steps for implementation, we are pleased to offer our assistance. 5kreT Y 60MMI TTY DRAFT 3/27/91 TOBACCO FREE POLICY I. STANDARD PURPOSE: To create a safe, clean, and healthy environment for employees and the public who access City of Brooklyn Center buildings and vehicles. (A) Smoking or use of any other tobacco product is prohibited in all buildings and vehicles owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center. (B) Smoking or use of any other tobacco product is prohibited within fifty feet of every entranceway to buildings owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center except when extinguishing lighted cigarettes or tobacco products in receptacles located near those entranceways. II. DEFINITION (A) "Employees" include all full -time, part -time, seasonal, and volunteer City employees. (B) "Public" includes all contractors, clients, visitors, and every other person. (C) "Smoking" is defined as carrying or possessing any lighted tobacco product including cigars, cigarettes, and pipes. (D) "Buildings and vehicles owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center" include, but are not limited to, city hall, community center, city garage, golf course clubhouse, liquor stores, Earle Brown Heritage Center, well houses, enclosed park buildings, lift stations, storage garages, fire stations, and all automobiles, trucks, and other enclosed cab equipment owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center. (E) "Entranceway" shall include every means of access in to or out of buildings owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center, including, but not limited to, doorways and garage doors. III. SCOPE This standard applies to all City operations and work places. It also applies to all City employees and every other member of the public. Supervisors and employees are responsible for enforcement of this standard. Employees are subject to progressive discipline provisions of City ordinances, labor agreements, or other City policies. IV. LIMITATION This standard is effective September 1, 1991. AD HOC COMMITTEE /TOBACCO FREE POLICY SUMMARY OF MEETING ACTION CONMITTEE REPRESENTATION Facility Representative City hall /upper level Sue Rice City hall /police department Joel Downer Community center Joe Ericksen City garage Darrell Meehan Liquor stores Jean Mueller Fire stations Gary Giving Earle Brown Heritage Center Kim Hover Centerbrook golf course Dick Neuman Safety committee liaison Cheryl Cameron Chairperson (nonvoting) Geralyn Barone MAY 15 1991 All members present. • MOTION BY NEUMAN, SECONDED BY GIVING: to establish an employee survey to be drafted by Cameron and Barone and approved by the committee. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MAY 23 1991 All members present except Joe Ericksen. • MOTION BY NEUMAN, SECONDED BY MUELLER: to accept memorandum to employees and employee survey drafted by Cameron and Barone and distribute to employees. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. JULY 3 1991 All members present. • MOTION BY NEUMAN, SECONDED BY DOWNER: to establish a City -wide policy impacting all City employees and facilities equally. MOTION PASSED. AYES: Cameron, Rice, Downer, Ericksen, Hover, Neuman NAYES: Meehan, Giving, Mueller • MOTION BY NEUMAN, SECONDED BY CAMERON: to accept Section IA of the drafted tobacco free policy as is. MOTION PASSED. -1- I I AYES: Hover, Neuman, Downer, Cameron, Ericksen, Rice NAYES: Mueller, Meehan ABSTENTION: Giving • MOTION BY MUELLER, SECONDED BY HOVER: to delete Section IB of the drafted tobacco free policy. MOTION PASSED. AYES: Rice, Giving, Downer, Ericksen, Meehan, Hover, Mueller, Neuman NAYES: Cameron • MOTION BY MEEHAN, SECONDED BY CAMERON: to expand the policy to include all City -owned property. MOTION FAILED. AYES: Meehan, Cameron NAYES: Rice, Giving, Downer, Ericksen, Hover, Mueller, Neuman • MOTION BY MEEHAN, NO SECOND: to accept the rest of the drafted tobacco free policy as is. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. • MOTION BY ERICKSEN, SECONDED BY NEUMAN: to accept the purpose statement of the drafted tobacco free policy as is. MOTION PASSED. AYES: Rice, Giving, Downer, Ericksen, Hover, Mueller, Neuman NAYES: Meehan, Cameron • MOTION BY CAMERON, SECONDED BY NEUMAN: to accept Section IIA of the policy as is. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • MOTION BY DOWNER, SECONDED BY MUELLER: to accept Section IIB of the policy as is. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • MOTION BY NEUMAN, SECONDED BY DOWNER: to delete Section IIC of the policy. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY NEUMAN WITH NO OBJECTION FROM DOWNER. • MOTION BY GIVING, SECONDED BY HOVER: to accept Section IIC of the policy as is. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • MOTION BY DOWNER, SECONDED BY ERICKSEN: to accept Section IID of the policy as is. MOTION PASSED. AYES: Rice, Giving, Downer, Ericksen, Hover, Mueller, Neuman, Cameron ABSTENTION: Meehan -2- • MOTION BY MUELLER, SECONDED BY HOVER: to delete Section IIE of the policy. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • MOTION BY CAMERON, SECONDED BY ERICKSEN: to change the title of Section III from "SCOPE" to "RESPONSIBILITY" and to delete the first two sentences of this section of the policy. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • MOTION BY MEEHAN, SECONDED BY NEUMAN: to codify the policy as a City ordinance. MOTION FAILED. AYES: Meehan, Neuman NAYES: Hover, Mueller, Downer, Cameron, Giving, Ericksen, Rice • MOTION BY DOWNER, SECONDED BY MUELLER: to amend Section III by renaming it "SCOPE" and amending the entire section to read as follows: "This standard applies to all City employees and every other member of the public. Supervisors and employees are responsible for enforcement of this standard. All employees are subject to progressive discipline provisions of City ordinance, labor agreements, or other City policies." MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • MOTION BY ERICKSEN, SECONDED BY HOVER: to amend Section IV of the policy to become effective three months after approval by the city manager. MOTION PASSED. AYES: Neuman, Hover, Mueller, Downer, Giving, Ericksen, Rice NAYES: Meehan, Cameron JULY 17 1991 All members present. Neuman left before voting. • MOTION BY RICE, SECONDED BY HOVER: to have the City reimburse up to $100 per employee for the cost of tobacco use cessation programs for full -time and part-time employees who work for the City at the time of policy implementation. The reimbursement shall be available for a one -year period only, ending one year after the implementation date. The City's contribution can be used for one or more programs by an individual employee, but the total reimbursement shall not exceed $100. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. -3- MEMORANDUM TO: City of Brooklyn Center Employees FROM. • Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager DATE: April 11, 1991 SUBJE CT. • Ad Hoc Committee/Tobacco Free Policy In response to an employee concern, the Brooklyn Center safety committee has drafted and forwarded to the city manager a tobacco free policy for the City of Brooklyn Center. The committee has also recommended the establishment of an ad hoc employee committee, comprised of employees who are tobacco users and those who are not, to accomplish the goals stated on the second page of this memorandum. IF YOU WISH TO VOLUNTEER YOUR TIME TO SERVE ON THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED APPLICATION AND RETURN IT TO PERSONNEL COORDINATOR GERALYNBARONEAT CITYHALL BY 4:30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1991. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Eight committee members will be appointed by the city manager with one representative from each of the following locations: FACILITY City hall /upper level City hall /police department Community center City garage Liquor stores Fire stations Earle Brown Heritage Center Centerbrook Golf Course clubhouse A ninth ad hoc committee member will be one safety committee member designated by the city manager. Based on a representation of the city's employee population, 3 members will be tobacco users and 6 members will not. Due consideration will be given to create a balance of supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel on the committee. I have appointed Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone as chairperson (without voting privileges, however), and she will also provide staff assistance to the committee. Goals of Ad Hoc Committee The following goals for the ad hoc committee should be accomplished no later than July 17, 1991, unless otherwise extended by the city manager. Recommendations generated by the ad hoc committee will be forwarded to the safety committee for review and comment. The ad hoc committee's recommendations, left intact, along with the safety committee's comments, will be forwarded to the city manager. Based on this information, the city manager will present a policy proposal to the city council for final disposition. 1. Review, comment, and make recommendations on the tobacco free policy drafted by the safety committee. 2 Recommend the earliest effective date of the policy. 3. Prepare a policy implementation plan that would include recommendations and guidelines related to the availability of and City's contribution towards cessation programs for tobacco users. 4. Develop other recommendations on what can be done to make the policy implementation an easy and effective transition for all employees. I you have an questions or concerns regarding this lease see me or Geral If any g � n Barone. P Y g Date Received: APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AD HOC EMPLOYEE COMMITTEE TOBACCO FREE POLICY NAME: FACILITY YOU REPRESENT. City hall /upper level City hall /police department Community center City garage Liquor stores Fire stations Earle Brown Heritage Center Centerbrook Golf Course clubhouse ARE YO U A TOBACCO USER? Yes No WHICH ARE YOU CLASSIFIED AS: Supervisory Nonsupervisory WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SERVE AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE? Yes No PLEASE DESCRIBE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE: Your Signature Date RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO PERSONNEL COORDINATOR GERALYNBARONE AT CITY HALL NO LATER THAN 4:30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1991. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 October 18, 1991 TO: Brooklyn Center Safety Committee Y Y FROM: Diane Spector, Public Works Coordinato�`"!lc " SUBJECT: Tobacco -Free Government Facilities Policy Paper TOBACCO -FREE GOVERNMENT FACILITIES POLICY • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PURPOSE: To create a safe, clean, and healthy environment for employees and the public who access City of Brooklyn Center buildings and vehicles. POLICY: Smoking or use of any other tobacco product is prohibited in all buildings and vehicles owned or leased by the City of Brooklyn Center. BACKGROUND:' The US Surgeon General estimated that in 1989 one out of every six deaths in the United States could be attributed to smoking. About 400,000 people die from smoking- caused illnesses each year, making smoking the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Numerous epidemiological studies `The information in this policy statement was compiled from a variety of sources, which are noted in the accompanying bibliography. �cn =t `01. 0 2 now solidly link exposure to second -hand smoke, also called passive or environmental smoke, with the same health problems caused by smoking. A leading researcher estimates that passive smoke may kill as many as 50,000 Americans each year. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which attributes approximately 3,800 lung cancer deaths among non - smokers to environmental smoke, has recently listed environmental tobacco smoke as a group A, or very hazardous, carcinogen. The use of smokeless tobacco, also called chewing tobacco or snuff, has been causally linked to mouth, throat, and neck cancers. Based on the conclusive findings of a growing and diverse group of medical experts, to protect the health and safety of employees and visitors who choose not to use tobacco, the City of Brooklyn Center has implemented a policy prohibiting tobacco use in any city facility, including both buildings and vehicles. This policy is in effect both when a smoking employee is with a group of other employees or visitors, and when the employee is alone. The findings on which this policy is based are described below: 1. Mounting evidence shows an increased risk to the health of persons exposed to second -hand or sidestream smoke. o Several studies indicate that non - smokers exposed to second -hand smoke are at a greater risk of coronary disease and cancers than non - smokers not exposed to smoke. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study estimated that the risk of lung cancer is about 30 percent higher for non - smoking spouses of smokers than it is for non - smoking spouses of non - smokers. The risk of heart attack is also increased 30 percent, and increases with exposure; the heavier the smoker, the greater the risk to the non - smoking partner. o Cigarette smoke contains 43 known carcinogens. The EPA has classified cigarette smoke as a class A, or very hazardous, carcinogen. o Rabbits exposed to sidestream smoke (the smoke from a smoldering cigarette, cigar, or pipe) for 15 minutes a day for 20 days developed lung damage resembling an asthmatic reaction. Cells in the rabbits' airways degenerated, and their lungs became more permeable. This significantly increased the rabbits' risk of serious lung disease by creating an easier entry point for microbes, pollutants, and toxins. 3 2. Second -hand smoke contains several irritants, causing reactions ranging from mild to severe in both non - smokers and smokers. These reactions can cause a reduction in work productivity. o Second -hand smoke contains, among other irritants, ammonia, formaldehyde, and nitric oxide. Studies have found that 50 -75 percent of non - smokers react adversely to these and other irritants. The most common reactions are eye irritation, nausea, dizziness, wheezing, and stuffy or runny nose. o The sulfur dioxide in second -hand smoke affects the large airways in the lungs. Nitrogen dioxide affects the small airways and air sacs in the lung as well as the small blood vessels that surround the lung. This decrease in efficiency makes it harder for exposed persons to exercise, because the lungs are less able to get oxygen to the heart. Persons with heart disease are more likely to experience the chest pains of angina. 3. Young children are particularly susceptible to the effects of second -hand smoke. Children are present in a number of City facilities. A number of female City employees have chosen to continue working during pregnancy. o Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says "Children who are raised in a home where even one parent smokes, let alone two, start off with a strike against them." o Children whose parents smoke are more likely to have bronchitis, laryngitis, and sore throats. They are more likely to wheeze, suffer from chronic coughs, and to produce excess phlegm. Smokers' children under age two are more likely to be hospitalized for bronchitis and pneumonia than non - smokers' children of the same age. Five studies show that the children of smokers have more problems with running ears and with other middle ear diseases. Smokers' children have lower levels of lung capacity than non - smokers' children. o Research shows that between 11 and 14 percent of premature births can be attributed to the mother's smoking. The more a mother smokes, the greater the chance that her baby will die during the last two months of her pregnancy or the first month after birth. Infants whose mothers smoke are more likely to suffer from cerebral palsy, crib death, and certain kinds of learning and behavioral problems. A limited amount of research shows that second -hand smoke breathed by a pregnant woman can reduce the weight of the baby she is carrying. 4 4. There is a growing body of evidence that smokeless, or chewing tobacco, is also directly linked with certain cancers. o The Advisory Committee to the US Surgeon General estimated that users of smokeless tobacco have 50 times the risk of oral cancers than non - users. o One "dip" of smokeless tobacco delivers ten times more nitrosamines than a cigarette. Nitrosamines are one of the chief cancer- causing compounds in tobacco. o Oral cancers are the sixth leading cause of death by cancer. 5. Smoking has a significant impact in the workplace. Second -hand smoke has been shown to affect the health of non - smoking employees. Smoking increases the risk of on the job accidents, the use of sick leave, and employer's costs. o A study of 2,100 adults found that non - smokers working in smoke - filled environment for 20 years had a lung impairment similar to people who smoke up to ten cigarettes per day. o Smokers are at a higher risk for repetitive motion injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome. o One professor of economics estimates that each smoker costs his or her employer between $547 and $979 (1990 $) per year. This reflects an accident rate twice as high for smokers as for non- smokers, a greater absentee rate, and the estimated additional eight minutes per day break time smokers take to smoke. o A study of 15,000 employees by the Control Data Corporation (CDC) found that people who smoke at least a pack a day have 18 percent higher medical costs than non - smokers. o Brooklyn Center could save an estimated $10,000 annually in worker's compensation insurance if 90 percent of its police and fire fighters agreed not to smoke. o A 1989 survey of Twin Cities employers conducted by a private firm showed that 22.5 percent of employers have a total ban on smoking in any company buildings. 5 6. A total ban on tobacco in any facility is necessary for full health, safety, and sanitation protection. o Several studies, including field studies, controlled experiments, and mathematical models, show that smoke diffuses rapidly throughout buildings and homes, persists for long periods after smoking ends, and is one of the strongest sources of indoor -air particulate pollution. A single smoker in a home can double the amount of particulate air pollution inhaled by non - smoking members of the household. o A separate smoking room which is on the same ventilation system as other rooms in a building does not eliminate exposure; the pollutants disperse, and are carried through the building as the HVAC system recirculates the contaminated air. o Particulates circulating in a vehicle can be deposited on vehicle surfaces and remain even if windows are opened and smoke cleared away. Persons touching the contaminated surface are then exposed to those deposits. o The use of smokeless tobacco is harmful primarily to the user. However, disposal of chewed tobacco and saliva can pose cleaning and sanitation problems, and can be aesthetically unpleasing. 7. The US Surgeon General has made the following recommendations, with which the EPA concurs. The City of Brooklyn Center's tobacco -free government facilities policy is consistent with these recommendations. o Adults should protect the health of children by not exposing them to environmental tobacco smoke. o Employers and employees should ensure that the act of smoking does not expose non- smokers to environmental tobacco smoke by restricting smoking to separately ventilated areas or banning smoking from buildings. o Smokers should ensure that their behavior does not jeopardize the health of others. 0 Non - smokers should support smokers who are trying to quit. 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY "Indoor Air Facts Number 5: Environmental Tobacco Smoke." USEPA Office of Air and Radiation. June, 1989. Health Effects of Passive Smoking: in Adults Respiratory Disorders ass ve S o g. Assessment of Lung Cancer du is and in Children." USEPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs. May, 1990. "The Evidence Mounts on Passive Smoking," by Lawrence K. Altman. The New York Times May 29, 1990. "An Estimate of Adult Mortality in the United States from Passive Smoking," by A. Judson Wells. Environment Journal Vol. 14, 1988. "The Smoke -Free Workplace: A Guide for Minnesota Employers," by Sandra D. Sandell with Jeanne Weigum. Association for Non - smokers - Minnesota. 1990. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10121/91 Agenda Item Number 9 O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Video Display Terminal (VDT) Eye Wear Purchase Policy DEPT. APPROVAL: 4 f ti Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNDLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The City of Brooklyn Center's employee safe committee has recommended approval of a VDT h' PP eye wear purchase policy. Attached is a draft of the policy, some background information from MIS Coordinator Barbara Gallo in a memo dated March 5, 1991, and excerpts from safety . committee meeting minutes when the policy was discussed. Your approval of the policy and its funding implication is requested. The purpose of this policy is to prevent or reduce problems related to eye fatigue and eye strain due to prolonged use of microcomputers or terminals. The policy as proposed would have the City pay for fifty percent of an employee's special eye wear package, which now ranges in cost from $60 to $120. About 42 employees would be eligible for participation in the program, which has been structured similarly to the City's existing foot protection policy. The maximum cost to the City of this program is around $2,500. This would be an annual ongoing expense, although it is expected the greatest costs would be incurred during the first year of the program (when most eligible employees would first participate in the program; not all participants would need new glasses every year). RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve the video display terminal (VDT) eye wear purchase policy, with funding to be provided . in the 1992 budget, and with an effective policy date of Janaury 1, 1992. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUBJECT: VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL (VDT) EYEWEAR PURCHASE POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE: AUTHORIZATION BY CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL ACTION: DATE: August 2, 1991 PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to prevent or reduce problems related to eye fatigue and eye strain due to prolonged use of microcomputers or terminals. PROCEDURE A. Employees who regularly work with microcomputers or terminals may participate in the Video Display Terminal (VDT) Eyewear Purchase Program. Employees who regularly use microcomputers or terminals are encouraged to get periodic eye examinations. They are also encouraged to get eye exams if they experience problems such as sore neck and shoulder muscles. Employees should consider getting an eye exam if they have habitual problems with eye fatigue, burning eye or difficulty in focusing after prolonged work on a microcomputer or terminal. B. The City of Brooklyn Center will participate in the Benson Optical Industrial /Occupational Products Division, Occupational Package Program. An employee will be able to purchase video display terminal eyewear under the Benson Video Display Terminal (VDT) Eyewear Purchase, Improved Package program. The package allows for purchase of single vision lenses or progressive lenses with Ultraviolet protective coating, anti - reflective coating, and standard package or improved package frames for a set package price. The package price is substantially less than it would be if purchased outside the program. C. The City will pay for fifty percent of the package. The employee will be required to pay Benson's directly for the remainder of the purchase price and for any allowable options to the package. D. Employees who choose to participate in the program described in Sections B and C must get a Benson Optical Authorization Form from the MIS coordinator or the personnel coordinator. The form must be signed and dated by either the MIS coordinator or personnel coordinator. Upon receipt of the signed form, the employee can go to any Metro Area Benson Optical to purchase the eyewear. The employee needs to bring a prescription from an optometrist or ophthalmologist or they can have an in store eye examination. The cost of the examination is the responsibility of the employee. SCOPE: This policy applies to all full -time and part -time employees described in Section A. March 5, 1991 TO: Jerry Splinter Paul Holmlund Geralyn Barone FROM: Barbara A. Gallo, MIS Coordinator SUBJECT: Investigation into Subsidizing Glasses for VDT Use Over the past month, I surveyed five eye -glass providers. Those surveyed were Group Health, Benson's, Vision World, Lens Crafters, and Pearle Express. Two of the providers provide special industrial purchase programs. Under these programs, employees of a business, can purchase glasses for the work place at greatly reduced prices. The business must be registered with the provider's program. Benson's and Lens Crafters offer these programs. I did not get pricing for the Lens Crafters program because the business has to have at least 500 employees to qualify. The Benson's program has no such requirements and offers several type of lenses specifically designed for VDT use. If the City of Brooklyn Center wants to help employees purchase glasses for use with VDTs, I recommend we participate in the Benson's VDT program. The employees would be able to get quality eye - glasses, for use with VDTs, at a real discount. LENSES All the vendors surveyed recommend lenses for use with VDTs have anti - reflective and UV protection coatings. Bifocal or Trifocal Users When I originally presented my material on proper eye - glasses for VDT use, my research showed that single vision lenses would be best. However, after talking with the eye -glass providers and further research my views have changed. VDT users who require bifocals or trifocals should use a progressive lens. Progressive lenses, provide a complete range of focal powers from distance to near. However, with general purpose progressive lenses, the wearer must turn his or her head to read across the screen. Two eye care companies, American Optical and Varilux, have designed new lenses for presbyopic VDT users. Presbyopia is the inability of the eye to focus sharply on nearby objects. This condition occurs as we get older. American Optical's TruVision - , Technica is the only lens, of this type that I could find available locally. Technica is a progressive lens. It relocates both the viewing zones and unwanted astigmatism. The lens brings the reading segment up higher and gives the wearer a larger intermediate viewing distance. The wearer, without tilting the head, can lower the eyes 15' and focus on the VDT. Then by lowering the eyes another 15', the keyboard or 1 any reading material will be in focus. To see in the distance, the user just brings the chin down to look through the top portion of the lens. This allows the wearer to glance from copy to computer screen without turning the head. Optical Prism magazine in its November /December 1990 issue states: "ideally, the presbyopic computer user requires a lens that brings the entire workstation into focus with minimal head movement... Remember that the majority of computer users perform a variety of tasks in addition to working at the screen. Most read print- outs, use the telephone and write notes. These tasks area is at a variety of viewing distances, therefore, a fixed focal length lens can never be ideal." Non - bifocal and - trifocal Wearers Vision Correction Required Most VDT users who need vision correction to see VDT screens can use single vision lenses with anti - reflective and UV coatings. However, single vision lenses require that the user remove them to see other objects (for example, the, phone, printouts) clearly on the desktop. Leaving the glasses on will cause some blurring. For some users this may be a problem. American Optical's TruVision , Prima lens is another progressive lens. It is for the non - bifocal and - trifocal VDT user. The user gets clear viewing of the computer screen and • most other objects on the desktop. This progressive lens also relocates both the viewing zones and unwanted astigmatism. The Prima, unlike the Technica, offers only a slight reading segment. Vision Correction Not Required Some VDT users only need glasses to control glare. The glasses for these users would contain non - prescription lenses that are anti - reflective and UV coated. PRICES FOR VDT GLASSES BY VENDOR PROGRESSIVE LENS VDT EYE - GLASSES v�7DOe L�BBS AKff RHRi SC17V8 i7V (7 ...... FYAM& 707 AL CdATUYG< Group Health 120.00 25.00 9.00 50.00 204.00 Benson's' 95.50 25.00 Included in cost anti- Included in lenses cost. 120.50 reflective coating cost. Vision World 99.00 39.00 14.00 50.00 202.00 Pearle Express 139.95 25.00 9.00 50.00 223.95 ' The VDT package with the PRIMA lenses is also $120.50. . 2 SINGLE VISION LENS VDT EYE- GLASSES COAL Group Health 35.00 25.00 9.00 50.00 119.00 Benson's 34.50 25.00 Included in cost anti- Included in lenses cost. 59.50 reflective coating cost. Vision World 39.00 39.00 14.00 50.00 142.00 Pearle Express 39.95 39.00 20.00 50.00 148.95 1. The VDT eye - glasses package from Benson Optical, Industrial Products, purchasing program offers the best dollar value. Benson's offers a pair of eyeglasses for VDT use for $120.50. RECOMMENDATION As stated above, my recommendation is to participate in the Benson's VDT program. The employees could get quality VDT eye - glasses at a greatly reduced prices. The Benson VDT program does not require a minimum number of glasses to be purchased. Taking an informal survey, I would say we have at least ten employees who could benefit from the Technica lens. I have had four employees complain to me about neck and shoulder problems due to having glasses with bifocals or trifocals. If you are interested, I have more details about the Benson's Optical program. Let me know how you want to proceed. 3 Cameron noted the subcommittee has been reviewing a proposal regarding special eye wear for video display terminal (VDT) users. Gallo discussed some of the problems associated with employees who wear glasses while working on VDTs. She noted Benson's Optical has an industrial program for VDT glasses at greatly reduced rates if the employer participates in its program. Cameron noted a survey of employees has found that at least 28 employees wear single - vision lenses and 25 wear bifocal /trifocal lenses while working on VDT's. She noted the subcommittee suggested, in order to determine how effective the glasses are, a test case be run by an employee who has had difficulty wearing eyeglasses when working on a VDT. Gallo noted one of the secretaries in the recreation department has experienced neck and shoulder pain from using the VDT while wearing bifocals. Cameron pointed out that Gallo will be holding employee training essions on proper g p p r ergonomics for computer users, which may alleviate some of the problems o some Y p for employees. Gallo noted there are two issues at hand; the first is whether or not the City wants to participate in the Benson's program, and the second is if the City chooses to participate in the program, would the City contribute financially to some of the expense of the glasses. Cameron suggested the City purchase one pair of glasses for Carol Holt of the recreation department and follow up on her progress. Holmlund suggested one employee should also be tested for the single- vision lenses. Simacek noted he had trouble while wearing his bifocals and working on a VDT. When he went to the doctor, he was told his bifocals were not adjusted correctly. Once fixed, he had no more roblems while working on the VDT. Holmlund p g pointed out there is a different focal oint for eyeglass p wearers when using computers than for other uses. There was a motion by Cameron and seconded by Page to recommend to the city manager that the City purchase a pair of VDT eyeglasses for Carol Holt (bifocals) and Paul Holmlund (single- vision lenses) as test cases of the special eye wear. The motion passed. Spector noted the subcommittee has been reviewing the City's lockout /tagout policy in light of the new OSHA requirements, and an amended version of e th current standard that is in the safety manual was presented to the safety committee. She noted the amendments would provide ways to more aggressively pursue the policy. Spector said Maintenance Supervisor Mike Schlosser has purchased special tags to be used when tagging out machinery and to notify workers of lockouts of electrical equipment. She added Schlosser and Maintenance Custodian Rick Nelson have keys to lockout electrical boxes. In addition, there is one key in the maintenance supervisor's office to be used for contractors, such as Collins Electric. Spector said the proposed standards state more clearly that tags will be affixed, and contractors will be notified of the City's policy. She added Schlosser will post tags in all buildings. 4/3/91 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1991 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center safety committee was called to order by Chairperson Ron Boman at 1:03 P.M.. ROLL CALL Members present: Chairperson Boman, fire department representative; Paul Holmlund, risk management representative; Cheryl Cameron, representative at large, assessing department; Dick Ploumen, public works department representative; and Bruce B allan er Earle Brown n Heritage Center representative. Also present were Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, MIS Coordinator Barbara Gallo, Acting City Clerk Patti Page, and Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, staff assistant and recording secretary. Members excused: Fred Moen, police department representative, and Frank Whitman, public works department representative. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Doug Holm of Northstar Risk Services, Inc., David Howard of BHK & R Insurance, and John Simacek of American Risk Services, Inc. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Holmlund and seconded by Ploumen to approve the minutes of the April 3, 1991, safety committee meeting. The motion passed. Barone said she received a request to have minutes from the safety committee meetings posted for all employees to see. After general discussion, the committee suggested a summary of the meetings could - .be be included in the new employee newsletter which will begin distribution in July. APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIRPERSON Chairperson Boman suggested the committee recommend to the city manager that Cameron be appointed as vice chairperson of the safety committee, and there was consensus b the committee mmittee to do so. UPDATES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP LIST: As a new safety committee member, Ballanger requested he serve on the subcommittees of policies and standards, as well as inspections. This recommendation will be made to the city manager. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Subcommittee on Policies and Standards Gallo said she and Carol Holt (a recreation department employee) have been wearing the special video display terminal (VDT) eye wear. She noted Holt is using a progressive lens for bifocal 6/13/91 -1- wearers, which she has been very satisfied with because they eliminate many of her problems associated with working on the VDT. ) She added the eye wear can only be worn for the work -site environment. Gallo said she uses the prima lens, which provides light magnification for reading, and she is very satisfied with these. She added her eye fatigue has been eliminated and noted there seems to be no difference between the prima lens and the single- vision lens. Holmlund noted he was a poor candidate for one of the special lenses which did not work out for him. He added he has purchased nonreflective lenses, and he is happy with these. Holmlund suggested Gallo draft a policy with guidelines and bring this back to the safety committee. Spector noted the subcommittee on policies and standards had discussed a City contribution of $30 for single- vision lenses and $90 for bifocal lenses. The actual cost, depending on the glasses, ranges from $60 to $150. Chairperson Boman pointed out if the strain in the neck and back is reduced by wearing these glasses, there may be an elimination of a worker's compensation claim down the line. Holmlund suggested this policy is similar to the foot protection policy already in place by the City. Gallo pointed out special eye wear will not solve everyone's problems. There was a motion by Holmlund and seconded by Ploumen to have MIS Coordinator Gallo develop a policy for special VDT eye wear, which will include information regarding fees and guidelines for participation. Annual cost should be included. The motion passed. Gallo said she will have information available to the safety committee at its August meeting. Barone said the updated lockout /tagout procedure was approved by the city manager, and the policy will be distributed to supervisors to review with their employees. The amendment to the safety committee bylaws was approved by the city manager and has been distributed to employees. Barone gave an update on the activities of the ad hoc committee/ tobacco free policy, which include the conduct of an employee survey, which is in the process of being tabulated. More information is expected at the next safety committee meeting. Barone noted there were several issues raised by staff from the Earle Brown Heritage Center regarding specific items in the safety manual, including he commercial ' g cial driver s license information and confined spaces policy. Chairperson Boman recommended this information be referred to the policies and standards subcommittee for review. Holm noted information regarding mud flaps on trucks can be found in handouts from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust conference in the commercial driver's license portion of the handouts. 6/13/91 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1991 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center safety committee was called to order by Chairperson Ron Boman at 1:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Chairperson Boman, fire department representative; Paul Holmlund, risk management representative; Cheryl Cameron, representative at large, assessing department; Bruce Ballanger, Earle Brown Heritage Center representative; Bob Cahlander and Frank Whitman, public works department representatives; and Fred Moen, police department representative. Also present were Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, Administrative Aide /Deputy City Clerk Patti Page and Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, staff assistant and recording secretary. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Doug Holm of Northstar Risk Services, Inc. and John Simacek of American Risk Services, Inc. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Whitman noted in the minutes of June 13, 1991, on page 4, four lines from the top, the line should read "said the City should consider adding backup alarms to vehicles." Whitman noted the minutes incorrectly use the term "backup lights." There was a motion by Holmlund and seconded by Moen to approve the minutes of the June 13, 1991, safety committee meeting with the amendment on page 4, fourth line from the top, to delete the word "lights" and replace it with the word "alarms." The motion passed. UPDATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP LIST Cahlander agreed to serve on the subcommittees of the safety committee originally assigned to Dick Ploumen (subcommittee on accident and injury review and subcommittee on inspections). SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Subcommittee on Policies and Standards Barone said the MIS Coordinator drafted a policy regarding eye wear for VDT users at the request of the safety committee. There was some discussion regarding the amount of the City's contribution towards cost of the eye wear for employees. Holmlund asked if the City is assuming any liability by accepting this policy, and Simacek said he does not think so. Moen pointed out the policy does not mandate employees to purchase the eyeglasses. Whitman asked a question on what the special lenses do, and Simacek proceeded to describe the function of the special eye wear. Whitman asked if this would constitute the same situation where the City must provide safety glasses when employees work with hazardous 8 -7 -91 -1- substances, and Simacek said it does not because the VDT eye wear is a user's aid. There was some general discussion on who would use the eye wear, the type of lenses, the eye exams necessary to purchase the glasses, and the amount of the City versus employee contribution towards the cost of the glasses. There was a motion by Moen and seconded by Whitman to approve the video display terminal (VDT) eye wear purchase policy. The motion passed. The subcommittee also reported on hearing protection. Cameron said in the employee safety manual, the OSHA standard is referenced regarding hearing protection, and there are no additional procedures related to this. Simacek pointed out when there are standards established in the safety manual that are separate from the OSHA requirements, the manual would have to be updated every time the OSHA standard is updated. Barone said Ron Rico of EBA was going to check the noise levels throughout the City facilities. Whitman pointed out some departments are already taking steps to address the noise hazard, including the fire department and the Tom Bublitz, Assistant EDA Coordinator City garage. Chairperson Boman said the City has addressed a problem when it has been raised. There was discussion regarding noise from fire department apparatus and police department sirens. Cameron said the subcommittee reviewed several changes to the safety manual. After reviewing the motor vehicle operation section, the subcommittee agreed there is no need to amend it. She noted Spector is working on a policy regarding confined spaces to broaden it to other employment areas in City facilities. Ballanger explained the confined spaces situation at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Subcommittee on Programs and Training Barone noted CPR and first aid classes are being scheduled for public works employees. In addition, a survey has been distributed to most employees to determine the level of interest in offering these classes. Chairperson Boman said he and Dick Ploumen attended an accident investigation seminar, and this seminar's instructor will be meeting with him and Barone to arrange a supervisors' training session on accident investigation. Barone reviewed safety and personnel training recently held for employees at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and also for seasonal employees in the public works department. Whitman said the subcommittee met to discuss a proposal regarding a defensive driving program for employees. Based on the subcommittee's discussions, there should be two programs. The first would be to develop a drivers' training and education policy, 8 -7 -91 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 10/21/91 Agenda Item Number 9� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT POLICIES (DISCUSSION ITEM) DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp irector of Public Works MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes The attached report is submitted to provide a basis for preliminary review and discussion of the City's residential street maintenance and improvement programs and policies. This City has historically provided a high level of street maintenance. However, the costs of providing that level of maintenance continues to increase as the streets get older (the average street in Brooklyn Center is approximately 30 years old, and has not had a major upgrade since construction). Additionally, the lack of concrete curbs and gutters "creates an unkempt appearance... (with) no clear definition between streets and n ' " ards Maxfields report on the Brooklyn ( Y P y Center Housing Market). The lack of curbs and gutters also hastens deterioration of the street, and increases maintenance costs. This report provides an overview of the subject matter, discusses costs and potential sources of financing, and recommends development of a program based on citizen participation in the development of a technical "pavement management system" (PMS). Specifically, the report recommends: • that, for the immediate future, fundin g levels for the street maintenance program be maintained at a level which assures an acceptable level of maintenance on all streets. • that a Pavement Maintenance System (PMS) software program be purchased in 1992 and implemented as soon as possible - to assure the City's ability to make long -term cost effective decisions regarding street maintenance and improvements. This includes the need to "let go" of a seriously deteriorated street (by providing a minimum level of maintenance instead of • an extraordinary level of repair) for several years prior to its scheduled reconstruction. . that consideration be given to initiation of a street improvement program in the southeast neighborhood in 1992, to an expanded improvement program covering other neighborhoods starting in 1993, and to development of a financing plan which will assure the City's ability to achieve the desired goals. • that a process of citizen participation be established, to assure public support for the City's maintenance and improvement program. • that, in the long term, the City's street maintenance and improvement policies and programs be based on (1) citizen participation, and (2) the technical data available from a PMS system. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review... Discuss... Feedback... Provide direction to staff... • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 3, 1991 RE: Street Maintenance and Improvement Policies Current Street Maintenance Program The City of Brooklyn Center is responsible for construction and maintenance of the 105 miles of streets which are under its jurisdiction. Of these streets, 21 miles are designated as Municipal State Aid streets (see attached map showing MSAS system), while the remaining 84 miles are classified as "local" streets. The City has historically provided a high -level street maintenance program on all City streets. Under this program, street patching and repairs are accomplished whenever signs of deterioration (chuckholes, cracking, settlement, rough edges, etc.) become evident. And all streets are sealcoated approximately once every 7 years. Total costs for this level of maintenance, including overhead and administration is estimated at $650,000 per year (this does not include signing, street sweeping, storm sewer maintenance, snowplowing, street lights, traffic signals, tree care, or any other costs not directly related to pavement maintenance. Because the average age of the City's streets is approximately 30 years, the costs for maintaining these streets are beginning to rise rapidly, and the City's ability to maintain an acceptable level of service is declining (same number of street department employees as in 1980, but older streets continue to get older). One major factor which contributes to the deterioration of the City's streets is the lack of concrete curbs and gutters. It is my understanding that City Councils in the 1940's, 50's and 60's deliberately elected not to install concrete curbs and gutters - to reduce costs, and to "distinguish Brooklyn Center from Minneapolis ". While that decision may have been effective at that time, the long -term reality is that streets without curb and gutter deteriorate faster - especially at their edges because of poor drainage and cars frequently driving over the weak edge of the pavement - and onto the boulevard areas. ,�esuian October 3, 1991 Page Two As stated in the 1989 "Brooklyn Center Housing Market" study prepared by the Maxfield Research Group: "...the lack of curb and gutter along all residential blocks (with the exception of the collector streets) creates an "unkempt" appearance on many blocks. This is despite the best intentions of property owners, many of whom maintain their properties well. The most notable perceptual problem with the lack of curb and gutter is along 53rd Avenue North. Looking south from 53rd Avenue North, all Minneapolis streets have curb and gutter (as well as sidewalks), whereas the blocks in Brooklyn Center have no clear definition between the streets and yards. We believe that this presents a worse visual image than that of Minneapolis." Pre -1985 Policies Regarding Street Improvements Prior to 1985 the City's policy regarding street improvements in residential areas was that: • on local (i.e. non -MSAS) streets, all costs would be specially assessed .to benefitting property owners, • on MSAS streets, property owners would be assessed at rates equal to those for non -MSAS streets, while MSAS funds would pay the increased costs for constructing those streets to MSAS standards. Under that policy the only projects completed were those which the City Council initiated, and all were improvements to the MSAS system. Because the City annually receives MSAS funding ($830,00 in 1991) for improvements to the MSAS system, we are able to provide a reasonably adequate improvement program to keep that system upgraded. However, that is not the case for local street projects. Revised Policy Adopted in 1985 In 1985 the City Council revised the policy to provide that, for residential street reconstruction, including the installation of concrete curb and gutter, the City would annually establish a "unit rate" of assessment for "residential properties, zoned or used as single family sites, which are not subdividable under the City's subdivision ordinance." That rate was established at $1200 per unit in 1985 and has been adjusted annually, using the "ENR Construction Cost Index" to a 1991 rate of $1415 per unit. That rate is based on the Council's intent to specially assess approximately one -third (33 %) of the average cost for reconstruction of a residential street. Note Actual costs for reconstruction will vary greatly from street to street. Accordingly, usage of the fixed unit rate may recover anywhere 0 between 20% and 50% of the costs for a given improvement. On average, however, the current rate would recover approximately 30 to 35% of actual costs. October 3, 1991 Page Three In addition to establishing the unit rate of assessment for street reconstruction projects, the 1985 Council also decided that non -MSAS street improvement projects should be initiated by petition of property owners, not by the City Council. Since adoption of that policy in 1985 only two residential street reconstruction projects have been initiated by petition of property owners, approved by Council and completed. Proposed Pavement Management System One item included in the 1992 Data Processing Department's budget request is the purchase of a Pavement Management System (PMS) software program. Our reasons for recommending the purchase and implementation of this program include: • It will help to "fine tune" the City's sealcoating program by better forecasting which street segments will benefit and which can wait. • It will provide a documented basis for deciding whether to continue to repair a street segment or to reconstruct it (i.e. - PMS has the ability to predict when it is no longer cost effective to continue to maintain the street). • It has the ability to maintain a tree inventory, as well as an inventory of roads, sidewalks, trails, bridges, etc. • It will be integrated into the total public works information management system which will include automated mapping, a public utilities management system, a vehicle management system and other MIS applications. As such, a PMS system will assure the City's ability to develop the most cost effective long -term street maintenance program to document the needs and to Provide a sound basis for development of a street improvement program. While we believe a PMS system is very important to the long -term cost effectiveness of a street maintenance program, it must be recognized that it will take 1 to 3 years to fully implement such a system. Estimated Costs for Street Reconstruction City Engineer Mark Maloney has estimated that the costs for residential street reconstruction will vary between $200,000 /mile and $500,000 /mile, depending on the type of improvements needed, i.e.: Type I - install curb & gutter, w /minor $200,000 /"mile 40 drainage adjustments, patching and overlay October 3, 1991 Page Four Type II - same as Type I, but with minor $300,000 /mile regrading, etc. Type III - complete reconstruction $400,000 to $500,000 / * mile Note These estimates do not include the costs for major improvements to the storm drainage system, to water or sanitary sewer systems, or for major "streetscape" improvements. On this basis, it would cost $25 to $30 million to reconstruct all 81 miles of non -MSAS streets in the City... not including the cost of related utility improvements. Financing Options Following is a listing of existing and potential financing sources: Source Comments Special Assessments Must be based on provable "...increase in market value" of the benefitted properties. (Note: discussions with our City Assessor, and with a qualified independent real estate appraiser have indicated that the City's current rate does reflect actual increases in market value of the properties. General Obligation Bonds Under state law, cities are allowed to finance public improvements with the sale of G.O. bonds, without an election, if at least 20% of the total cost of the improvement is defrayed by special assessments Under this option, the tax levy needed to pay the non - assessed portion of the costs are excluded from the City's levy limits. Infrastructure Replacement Reserve Fund A city may, after holding a public hearing on the question, establish an infrastructure replacement reserve fund. This reserve fund may be used to finance the replacement of streets, bridges, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, trees, and storm sewers. When a tax is proposed to be levied for this fund, city residents are given the option of requesting by petition that the levy be considered by referendum vote in a regular or special election. October 3, 1991 Page Five The principle advantage of this mechanism is that it can be used to finance a variety of improvements. However, a tax levied for this fund is subject to the property tax levy limitations. Robbinsdale has established an Infrastructure Fund to help fund improvements to streets, curbs, and gutters. Street permit fees are deposited into this fund, as is the city's state aid maintenance allocation. No tax has been levied, but it may be in the future, especially if levy limitations are lifted. Roseville finances its street overlay program through its infrastructure fund. It levies a tax totalling about $100,000 annually. Local MSA Accounts 2600 & 2611 These funds have traditionally been dedicated primarily for the purpose of constructing the City's sidewalk and trail systems. The sources for these funds are (1) fund balances from regular MSAS projects which result from charging special assessments on projects which are also funded by MSAS funds; and (2) interest earned on local MSA fund balances. Because of the City's aggressive MSAS regular improvement program, and because of the reduced revenues from special assessments levied on regular MSAS projects, this is a very limited resource which has a very limited ability to replenish itself. In recent years, some of these funds have been used to pay the City's share of certain street improvements. We currently estimate that the unencumbered balance available in these two funds is $2.4 million. Staff recommends that the majority of these funds still remain dedicated for improvements to the City's sidewalk and trail systems. However, it October 3, 1991 Page Six may be appropriate to use up to $500,000 of these funds as "seed money" to expedite the development of a street improvement program if other sources are expected to become available to continue such a program. Storm Drainage Utility Funds This funding source, adopted by the City in 1991 provides funding for improvements to storm drainage systems. Because nearly all street improvement projects require adjustments to storm drainage systems, (or major storm drainage system improvements) it is appropriate to charge those costs to the City's SDU fund. In addition, it may be possible to justify a small part of the costs for curb and gutter construction to the SDU fund on the basis of anticipated water quality improvements. CDBG Funds The City currently receives approximately $200,000 per year of these federal funds which must be utilized to benefit low and moderate income segments of the community. Primarily, these funds have been used for the purpose of selective clearance, home improvement grants, energy conservation projects, etc. Brad Hoffman suggests that possibly up to $50,000 per year of CDBG funds could be used on a street improvement program so long as it can be shown to benefit low and moderate income residents. It is suggested that these funds could be set aside to provide relief from special assessments for low income residents. By providing relief to low income residents, a special assessment policy becomes much less onerous. Utility Franchise Fees The 1991 legislature allowed cities to (a potential source) establish franchise fees to be applied to either electrical utility fees or to natural gas utility fees. If the City of Brooklyn Center adopted such a franchise fee, a portion of those revenues could be dedicated to a street improvement program. October 3, 1991 Page Seven Transportation Utility Funds The 1992 legislature will probably again (a potential source) consider allowing cities to adopt a transportation utility. The League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Cities have endorsed the concept and are supporting its enactment. If enabling legislation is enacted by the legislature, and adopted by the City Council, this could provide a substantial funding source. Getting Started Without other considerations, the normal approach to developing an improvement program would be to select those streets which are in the poorest physical /structural condition to be reconstructed first. On that basis, staff believes the first area to be selected would be the residential streets west of Brooklyn Boulevard and north of 69th Avenue. However, staff recognizes the validity of the following statement in Maxfield's Housing Market study: "To strengthen the appeal of individual neighborhoods... As street work is scheduled, begin to improve neighborhood streets with curb and gutter, beginning with the southeast neighborhood. Curb and gutter makes residential property more attractive, and this improvement is most needed in the southeast neighborhood because it is an older area which can most benefit from this visual improvement." Accordingly, staff recommends priority consideration of a program within a selected segment of the southeast neighborhood. As soon as possible thereafter, the program should be expanded to include other residential areas of the City - including the area west of Brooklyn Boulevard and north of 69th Avenue. While it appears that continued reliance on public petitions will not achieve the desired results, it is recognized that a process of citizen participation is essential to the success of any improvement program. Accordingly, staff suggests that the Financial Task Force and /or the Earle Brown Neighborhood Committee, and possibly other groups be asked to participate in developing a street improvement program. Staff believes that it would be possible to develop a relatively small (1/2 mile to 1 -1/2 mile) street improvement program for implementation in 1992. October 3, 1991 Page Eight Recommendation To provide a sound basis for a future street maintenance and improvement program, it is recommended: • that, for the immediate future, funding levels for the street maintenance program be maintained at a level which assures an acceptable level of maintenance on all streets. • that a Pavement Maintenance System (PMS) software program be purchased in 1992 and implemented as soon as possible - to assure the City's ability to make long -term cost effective decisions regarding street maintenance and improvements. This includes the need to "let go" of a seriously deteriorated street (by not doing extraordinary level of repairs) for several years prior to its scheduled reconstruction. • that consideration be given to initiation of a street improvement program in the southeast neighborhood in 1992, to an expanded improvement program covering other neighborhoods starting in 1993, and to development of a financing plan which will assure the City's ability to achieve the desired goals. • that a process of citizen participation be established, to assure public support for the City's maintenance and improvement program. • that, in the long term, the City's street maintenance and improvement . policies and programs be based on (1) citizen participation, and (2) the technical data available from a PMS system. Conclusion This report is presented to provide a basis for discussion of this issue. Staff will welcome the opportunity to present this matter to the City Council, and to develop such follow -up information, and to provide support for such citizen participation programs as the City Council may select. BROOKLYN FAR All - I � - Ov9 t 01��SQ� IL• 1 w, LID /p Ij E Ii> nrJ � 4G i • ; .Iw r C QY1LL p a 0 _ I L�1 •V E:_ - i tl__ �p, `�,. I A CRYSTAL °IY i 1. r fG•gr _AVM) <i fi w Q �DYL. "$ ° u l � �<i; l m [' \\ 4 [[.V, rerE p g er[ __III -� o L�� � \ L �1 11'�h .L . AYE [ u[ (I`I w�MI 0 uu (((T D E ........ �. OZ I .1[L 'l �•vt i 1. t-d + inV,•A�`1` 0 _ - IlN in01_AM!__AVE__I�.1� 0 Fti� n,/ �1 n � .. 0691 . l 11 'I o = 40 _ L ,.r00 a r of --0 .. II II Il f J�MNA t L1L_ _ u t r � �rr .r. Ir ( .. r..•� - OU2b p � r. . "::.�:..1'�9!` 9/ •F..r. aJ l !tip 1^$ 't'L /r! upb1 i�l_bg[�._1 i r n, ? & I .Llt [{ t'✓0 ; L_!YE___ 1. I C' Q _..�. .. ..�o._. •GI� Jr.p ^v w � 1xl��r ���� �,-- �� -��(r� /L � �.yl ( 1 � I= . —. O I /�'�� /i �' 1 I. '9� i, g 3•' E w QN nC4" (P!t .` I �� _ �c�gwLN1I u � `�► i`0 I ��'• N'W �•.i �� � � �'wo. � _ `��.., A �-' —�_ et•t_Q N t Av A �ryLr IA �.7C . ., aeQ • t - pgOS �, t � ; pC e �:� I� .1 tnl In - J 1f IA — YL 1 J � \ 1tLDn�JI•YLJ _��:�� ,"' I .r•et1'6� +H, 1C -_. �4[��I l I' ,� g ��'u�M•Y14r -..oi' � o y � �•. {=� � /,� ��- I — efoo: 1f ­11.1 Alt w_ �` ��ssnG Iry •�'L' �b vi" ` �a �� 7l if� �I � •,�;� � � ll I 2 ha L•'[ *Il• V I�n.1� -� '1Ll� 1 u6 \f , Il \;9� ya!q •. SJ {ZI�i •vrOLl2 � C °0•cMt UL. H. \ � { 1 �., / -� /J �. � l4 ➢.H JL A t .]�" I• I 06;0 Z ` /� r , __ _ oFllZ W �1�••J� _ 550 p . 32511 r ` I� E'O ^*w �� /I f ,�� d s Ct �� IAYd . �pl 0 4400. �7"'" I�46U0� F �.�60 6Lt.. v. _. JOOs`, • �E f `. .... pOSll w'00401 n ll ( 9q_�+606� 7 I Art .'lu _. t H. I [. 2 & ... o a ;_ 11 ....�i Jl t� Q obt iFL N D irretl t - n 1 l' x eeo Ir sw;KIdl 3 »I l«t _ A p A �}T �� c r n I � ✓ >QNGtI _ ?rArt 1 Jr d t Al J... .. n c cT p eYL H, ll � rt 1 t n v y,t, ,t ' �� A � ILuePALt . nrtl� n ✓'m ^ ��t000az�l Qd� �� �� »� & zl '� \ ,.. 9t .[r.r if Ui __ —__ w (X1042 P•s1�3 1Q - Fv l � ND __.] n 1 Lvr� t IFNN ' �_.• \• ' t, issivPi ^'tYU�A' 1 '� .., - WjSt�iT117 - \ wr i it eu_I MiS L.0 4 0 3 F R I DL E Y (( }y(lfpJ1f— Nr4e Iti 1 In CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10 /21/91 Agenda Item Number 4 Cv REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW LIFT STATION NO. 2, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -P DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dinictor of ublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:f: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • On August 26, 1991, the City Council approved plans and specifications and directed advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, Reconstruction of Lift Station No. 2. Bids were received and opened on October 3, 1991. As shown on the resolution, 3 bids were received, with the lowest bid of $531,465.00 being submitted by Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The low bid compares to the previously reported Engineer's Estimate of $487,300, plus a 10% contingency (i.e. - total contract cost of $536,130). However, we recommend inclusion of a 5% contingency when awarding a construction contract - to cover possible changes required during construction. On this basis, the currently estimated construction costs are $558,038 (i.e. - $21,908 higher than the previously approved budget for this project). Attached hereto is a letter from SEH Inc., our consultants for this project, in which they report their evaluation of the low bidder's qualifications, and provide some explanation of the reasons their cost estimate was exceeded. SEH Inc. representatives will attend the Council meeting to explain why this facility will cost this much, to discuss the cost overrun, and other details about this project. Staff recommends award of the contract to the low bidder, Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota. A resolution for that purpose is provided for consideration. r As a separate agenda item, the Council will consider a resolution which approves a cost - participation agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, for the construction of the metering station included with the project. Additionally, the City Council previously authorized a proposed agreement with Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, for the exchange of properties between Lyndale Avenue and the Mississippi River. Staff is in the process of completing final details for these transactions. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW LIFT STATION NO. 2, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -P WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 3rd day of October, 1991. Said bids were as follows: Base Bid Alternate Bid Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. $ 531,465 $ 544,595 Barbarosa & Sons 556,400 562,400 .Gridor Construction 587,840 - -- WHEREAS, it appears that Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota has submitted the lowest bid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, for the amount of $ 531,465.00, with Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1990 -05 according to the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized an directed to return forthwith to all bidders the bid security submitted with their bid, except that the bid securities of the successful bidder and next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been executed. 3. The estimated costs and funding sources of Reconstruction of Lift Station No. 2, Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, Contract 1991 -P, as per low bid are as follows: RESOLUTION NO. As Amended Project Costs As Established Per Low Bid Construction Contract $ 487,300 $ 531,465.00 Contingency 48,730 (10 %) 26,573.00 (5%) Professional Services: Preliminary Investigation 14,090 14,090.00 Design Phase 114,780 114,780.00 Construction Phase 13,000 13,000.00 Staff Engineering (2%) 10,720 11,161.00 Administration (1 %) 5,360 5,580.00 Legal (1 %) 5,360 5,580.00 Total Est. Project Cost $ 699,340 $ 722,229.00 Project Fund Sources Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 50,000 $ 50,000.00 Public Utility Fund $ 649,340 $ 672.229.00 Total Est. Project Funding $ 699,340 $ 722,229.00 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. � O EW-'WEFRS 6 ARcmrErTS wptA1VNER5 3535 /ADNA.rS CENTER DRIVF 5T PAO / MlNNI�5QTA5S170 672,490-2 OQO October 17, 1991 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA LIFT STATION NO. 2 SEH FILE NO. 90196 Mr. Sylvester Knapp City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: We have reviewed the bids that were received on October 3, 1991, for replacement of lift station No. 2 at 55th and Lyndale Avenues. The low bid of $531,465.00 for the base project and $544,595 for the alternate project was submitted by Gilbert Mechanical Contractors of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The alternate bid would include pumps other than those manufacturers named in the specifications. We have not had Gilbert Mechanical as a contractor on any of our previous projects. They have functioned primarily as mechanical contractors in the past and have only been bidding projects as a general contractor for the past year or so. We have contacted references from projects where Gilbert Mechanical has acted as both a general and as a mechanical contractor. Their work as a general contractor is somewhat limited, and only one project has been completed to date. That project consisted of a $160,000 well and pumphouse. The engineer indicated that the work was completed on time, the qualit and workmanship was good and there were no real problems. The other Projects where acted .� a Gilbert ha � as $ a Prime are still under construction. The engineers for those projects indicated th date. We also contacted severely have not had any problems to u sed Gilbert as a mechanical. general contractors that have eY could offer no reasons why Gilbert could not handle this p At our meeting on 9 Monday, October Gizb 34, we ex ressed con cerns that ert Mechanical may not be aware of the difficulty anticipated during excavation of this project. Since that time we have talked several times to Mr. Walter Sonfe, Gilbert Mechanical's 0 Project Manager, who indicated that Gilbert, in conjunction with their excavation and concrete subcontractors have included sheeting, dewatering and other provisions necessary to excavate for this structure. SHORT EUCrr ST PAUL, CH(FFFJYA FALLS HENDRICKSON INC. MINNL -SC*A CYIFFF ,VISCO 1A Mr. Sylvester Knapp October 17, 1991 Page #2 The engineer's estimate for this work was $487,300, excluding contingencies. A 10 percent contingency was used to cover insurance, bonding, mobilization and change orders. Assuming half of the contingency is reserved for change orders and the remaining half is added to the engineer's estimate, the contractors bid is $19,800 higher than what was anticipated. This was a lump sum job, and we do not have a detailed breakdown of the contractors bid. We have reviewed a preliminary cost breakdown and have identified a couple areas where the as -bid costs exceeded our estimate. The most prevalent was associated with the pressure tap and pressure line stop. We had estimated these costs to be $15,000 based on information that was obtained from speciality contractors that do this work. The actual cost, as indicated by the general contractor, is about $25,000. The remaining $10,000 appears to be spread across several smaller items. Based on the above, SEH recommends that the contract to construct lift station No. 2 be awarded to Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, for the base bid amount of $531,465. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert W, Stark, F.E. RWS /cmb TnTnJ n n_? CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/21/91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FOR COST PARTICIPATION IN LIFT STATION NO. 2 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -05 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, erector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:'., No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes In conjunction with Improvement Project 1990 -05, Lift Station No. 2 Replacement, a formal agreement between the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and the City of Brooklyn Center has been developed (copy attached). This proposed agreement identifies cost - participation by MWCC for the portions of the lift station improvement project which relate to the construction of a metering vault (Meter Station 110). The MWCC currently measures the amount of flow at Lift Station No. 2 via instrumentation within the existing wet well, and has determined the need for a separate facility after construction of the new station. The total dollar amount of cost participation by the MWCC will be determined after the contractor submits a schedule of values for the construction specific to the meter station. The City Engineer's estimate of this participation is $ 50,000, and the MWCC has pre- approved an amount of $ 60,000. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving the proposed agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) for cost participation is provided for consideration by the City Council. r J V Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FOR COST PARTICIPATION IN LIFT STATION NO. 2, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -05 WHEREAS, the City Council on August 26, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91 -209 approving plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, Reconstruction of Lift Station No. 2; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has requested that certain construction relating to sewage metering be included with the City's contract for Improvement Project No. 1990 -05; and WHEREAS, MWCC and City staff have jointly developed Agreement Number C -2712 relating to MWCC cost participation for the meter station construction, currently estimated as $ 50,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed Agreement Number C -2712 with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the meter station cost participation is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. All accounting for the project costs included in this agreement shall be in the Public Utility Funds. 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. METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER METER STATION PROJECT NUMBER 855950 AGREEMENT NUMBER C -2712 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER LIFT STATION NUMBER TWO REPLACEMENT BROOKLYN CENTER PROJECT NUMBER 1990 -05 This agreement, made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) and the City of Brooklyn Center (hereinafter called the City). WITNESSETH THAT, in the joint and separate exercise of each of their powers and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties hereto recite and agree as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS 1.01 Council & Commission Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473, the Metropolitan Council has adopted a comprehensive plan for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the metropolitan area. Minnesota Statutes 473.511 authorizes the Commission, at any time after January 2, 1970, to acquire, construct and equip all interceptors and treatment works needed to implement the Council's comprehensive plan. 1.02 Meter Station Improvements To implement the Metropolitan Council's comprehensive plan, the Commission has determined that meter station M110 should be constructed as a separate structure, adjacent to the existing Brooklyn Center lift station number 2, rather than inside the lift station as it currently exists. The Commission intends to have the City build the complete meter station. 1.03 City Facilities The City received bids on October 3 1991, for the lift station and meter station. This work will be constructed under the City's Lift Station Replacement project. 1.04 Joint Construction The lift station and meter station can be best and most economically constructed by the City under a single set of plans and specifications and a single construction contract; and the construction can best be done by the City. All of the improvements to be constructed, including the lift station, meter station and associated forcemain, are hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Project ". -1- SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 2.01 Plans and Specification The City has retained, Short Elliott and Hendrickson (SEH), Consulting Engineers, to prepare plans and specifications for the Construction Project. Plans and specifications for construction of the meter station have been prepared by SEH Inc. and included with the Construction Project. The plans and specifications for the Construction Project have been submitted to the Commission for review prior to bidding and shall be made Exhibit " A " to this Agreement. Record drawings (as- builts) shall be prepared by SEH and reviewed by the city and the Commission. 2.02 Construction Contract The City has advertised and received bids for construction of the Construction Project. 2.03 Contract Administration Except as hereinafter provided, the construction contract shall be administered by the City, and the City agrees to cause the Construction Project to be completed in accordance with the construction contract. The City shall provide a resident inspector to supervise the performance of the work, but the Commission shall inspect the materials for and construction of the meter station, and may request the City to require the contractor to perform any part of the contract in accordance with its terms, and to enforce any provisions of the construction contract necessary to obtain such performance. All work shall be performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 2.04 Commission's Designee Any action or rights which may be taken or exercised by the commission under this contract may be taken or exercised by the Commission's Chief Administrator or his designee on behalf of the Commission. SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FINANCING 3.01 Construction Protect Costs The cost of the meter station shall be based on the total price for all components of the meter station as contained in the schedule of values submitted by the Contractor whom is awarded the Construction Project. The Contractors schedule of values shall become Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. Upon completion of the contract, the City and Commission shall determine the final quantities and total costs of the meter station. If the schedule of values cost is not acceptable to the Commission, the Commission shall, within 10 days of receipt of the schedule of values, notify the city of it's non - acceptance of the schedule of values and this contract shall terminate. 3.02 Commission Costs The Commission agrees to pay for the complete construction, including materials, for the meter station and any site restoration made necessary by the meter station -2- construction. The estimated construction cost of the meter station is $60,000. 3.03 Payment of Costs The City shall pay all costs of the pursuant to Section 3.02 above as incurred and allowed in accordance with the construction contract, provided that no installation of Commission facilities under the contract shall be made without the prior approval of the Commission. Upon project completion, the City shall submit to the Commission a statement for the Commission's share of all construction costs approved for payment to the contractor. The Commission shall pay the accumulated amount of work completed shown on the statement on a lump sum basis on or before the 30th day of the month following the month in which it was received. Any billings not paid by the Commission within 60 days of the statement shall bear interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. SECTION 4. EXTRA AND DELETED WORK 4.01 Extra Work Extra work requested by the Commission beyond the scope of this agreement, but related to the contract work, shall be submitted to the City, in writing, prior to construction. Such requests shall be submitted in a timely manner to the City and paid for by the Commission. 4.02 Extra Work of Immediate Nature When extra work on Commission facilities requiring an immediate decision is encountered, the City's inspector shall notify the Commission Engineer's office within 24 hours for a decision. 4.03 Deleted Work The Commission may request deletion of portions of the proposed work, within the scope of this agreement, upon written request to the City. This written request shall be submitted to the City and the related costs for the deleted work shall'be deducted from the amount to be paid by the Commission. SECTION 5. OWNERSHIP AND USE 5.01 Use of Construction Project Upon completion of the Construction project and payments of all costs thereof, the Commission shall be entitled to the sole and exclusive control and use of the meter station, the City shall be entitled to the sole and exclusive control and use of the City Facilities. City facilities include the entire Construction Project except the meter station and it's associated facilities. The Commission shall operate and maintain the meter station and the City or its agents or employees shall operate and maintain the City Facilities, all in good working order and without causing damage to the other party's facilities. -3- 5.02 Easement The City shall be solely responsible for the timely acquisition of and payment for any property rights and right of way necessary for the Construction Project. The City shall obtain all necessary permits for the Construction Project. The City will transfer to the Commission an easement for the meter station in a recordable form. SECTION 6. AGREEMENT DURATION 6.01 Term This agreement shall continue until: (1) terminated as provided herein, or, (2) until the construction provided for herein is completed and approved, and payment provided for herein is made, whichever of (1) or (2) shall first occur. 6.02 Termination This agreement may be terminated by either party at any time, except as provided hereafter, with or without cause, upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice, delivered by mail or in person to the other party. If notice is delivered by mail, it shall be deemed to be received two days after mailing. Such termination shall not be effective with respect to any award of contract, any purchases of services or goods or administrative costs which occurred prior to such notice of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of this agreement have hereunto set their hands on the dates written below: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION By By Todd Paulson Charles Weaver Mayor Chair Dated , 1991 Dated 1991 Attest: Attest: B y By Gerald G. Splinter Gordon O. Voss City Manager Chief Administrator Dated 1991 Dated 1991 -4- Recommended for Approval: Recommended for Approval: BY BY Sy Knapp William G. Moore Public Works Director Director of Engineering and Construction Approved as to Form and Execution: By Mark D. Thompson Legal Counsel AED: j le C -2712 -5- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/21/91 Agenda Item Number /o REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION YYYY### YYYY# YYYYY# YY## YYY# Y# YYYYYY## YYYYYYYYYYYY## # #YY #Y # # # # # # #YYYY #YY #Y # #YYY #YY# ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION REGARDING BIDS FOR COMMUNITY WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R (NOTE: 3 OPTIONS PROVIDED FOR CONSIDERATION) DEPT. APPROVA. Sy Knapp, irector o ublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEWIRECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • On October 16, 1991 bids were received for the construction of the proposed water slide in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by Mjorud Architecture, Inc., as approved by the City Council on September 23, 1991. Only two bids were received as follows: Alltech Engineering Corp. $254,300 Sheehy Construction Co. $255,300 The architect's preliminary estimate for construction of the water slide was $182,500. Following receipt of the bids, City staff met with the architect and with the low bidder to review the bids received and to attempt to determine the cause for the major overrun. Following is a tabulation of the major factors which we identified: • The project as designed by the architect is intended to be a permanent structure with very low maintenance costs which is aesthetically pleasing and designed to compliment the existing design and architecture of the swimming pool and the entire Community Center. Design features include the construction of a custom built concrete stairway to the top of the water slide, a custom built concrete bridge over the end of the water slide, ceramic tile on the stair treads for both the stairway and the bridge, custom built railings on the stairway and the bridge, no exposed piping on the deck surface, and other minor features which are intended to enhance the function and the appearance of the water slide. • • Development of the plans and specifications was done on a fast track basis, which did not allow the opportunity for detailed discussions between the architect and prospective contractors, nor adequate discussion between the architect and City staff. With more time allowed some cost savings could have been realized by the change of some construction details. Also, with more time allowed, the architect could have reviewed his preliminary cost estimate and discussed design options with City staff. Relatively minor changes in design details which would not have substantially affected the aesthetics of the project could have reduced the costs by about $10,000. • The advertisement for bids for this project was published, and plans and specifications were available to contractors, for nearly three weeks prior to the bid opening, and the major fabricators of water slides were aware of the project through conversations with the architect well before the advertisement for bids was published. From past experience, this should have provided more than adequate time for interested bidders to receive plans and specifications, obtain the information that they needed and submit bids on a project of this size. In addition to the official advertisement for bids, copies of the bid notice were mailed individually to 15 contractors whom the architect felt would be capable of doing this project. However, only 4 general contractors obtained copies of the plans and specifications and only 2 bids were received. Thus, while we had expected a good deal of competitive bidding for this project, it now appears that most contractors were not especially "hungry" for this project. • Possible Revision of Plans and Specifications In order to bring the project costs to within or very close to the established budget of $182,500, it now appears that substantial changes would have to be made to the project design. The changes suggested for consideration include the following: • Use of a prefabricated steel bridge with fiberglass stair treads and standard pipe railing in lieu of the custom built concrete bridge. Estimated cost savings $20,000 to $25,000 • Use of a steel stairway with fiberglass stair treads and landings and standard pipe railings in lieu of a custom built concrete stairway with ceramic tile treads and custom built railings. Estimated cost savings $28,000 to $33,000 • Revision of plumbing system and pump room design. Estimated cost savings $ 5,000 to $7,000 • Allow contractor to use spread footings in lieu of concrete filled steel caissons. • Estimated cost savings $ 5.000 to $7.000 Estimated Total Cost Savings $58,000 to $72,000 • It is the opinion of the architect and the City staff that redesigning the project on this basis would still provide a water slide that is just as functional as the slide which would be built under the current plans and specifications. However, the following differences must be noted: • The overall appearance of the slide would not be as aesthetically pleasing. • Maintenance costs on the steel bridge and stairway would be higher than maintenance costs for concrete structures. However, the architect and staff have agreed that if steel structures are used, a very high quality paint system will be used to keep maintenance costs as low as possible. • The prefabricated steel bridge and stairway would have more posts extending down to the pool deck and steel bracing, resulting in somewhat more interference with the use of the pool deck spaces. Despite these disadvantages, such a redesign would provide a very functional and acceptable water slide. One possible advantage of constructing a lower cost water slide is that if consumer demands change so that water slides are no longer popular, or if the configuration of the slide needs to be changed after a few years of operation, it would be easier and less costly to change or to remove the steel structure. If, alternatively, the current use patterns continue to increase the demand for the use of the water slide, it would be possible to retrofit the slide by changing either the bridge or the stairway to a more aesthetic, permanent structure, possibly using the existing plans and specifications for those structures. • Options Available Following is a description and brief evaluation of the options which we believe are available to the City Council: Option 1 Accept the low bid received and award the contract in accordance with that bid. Discussion The low bidder is a responsible bidder who advises that he can complete the project by January 24, 1992 in accordance with the City's preferred schedule. Option 2 Award contract to the low bidder, but negotiate a change order to reduce the costs. Discussion Staff feels that this would be a legally acceptable option so long as the extent of the changes are limited to the point where they do not dramatically change the scope of the project. Under this scenario, we believe costs could be reduced be approximately $10,000 to $12,000 (changes to the plumbing system and to the footing design). Staff does not believe it would be legally proper to negotiate a major change in the design of the bridge and /or stairway because: • The second bidder, whose bid is only $1,000 higher, could validly make a point of unfair advantage to the low bidder. • Any other contractor who did not submit a bid could make a convincing case that the changes to the plans and specifications were so major that under the revised plans and specifications he would have been in position to submit a bid. Option 3 : Reject the current bids, authorize the architect to revise plans and specifications in accordance with the alternative designs outlined above, and advertise for new bids. Discussion: If this option is chosen, staff recommends the following schedule: • On October 21: Reject current bids and authorize preparation of new plans and specifications, and authorize advertisement for new bids. • Under this option new bids could be received in early December 1991, allowing adequate time for discussion of details between the architect and contractors and between the architect and City staff. This schedule also assure adequate time for all interested suppliers and bidders to become familiar with the project and submit competitive bids. • Under this option we estimate that construction could start in early February 1992 and be completed approximately two months • after start of construction. Recreation Director Mavis indicates that the months of February and March are two of the lowest use months of the year for swim lessons. He also feels that a start up date of approximately April 1 would provide water slide users with the opportunity to become familiar with the Brooklyn Center slide before competitive outdoor slides are opened for the season. Architect Mjorud has agreed not to charge any additional architectural fees for preparation of the revised plans and specifications. However, he has requested, and the staff feels it is appropriate, for the City to reimburse him for the costs which he must pay to the structural engineer, to the mechanical engineer, to the electrical engineer, and the costs for printing new plans-and specifications. He has agreed these costs will not exceed $1,000. Option 4 : Reject all bids and terminate consideration of the installation of a water slide Discussion Consideration of this option must also include consideration of the current negative cash flow experience of the swimming pool. Staff Recommendations City Manager Splinter, Recreation Director Mavis, and I recommend selection of • Option 3, i.e. - rejection of all bids, revision of the plans and specifications, and advertising for new bids. This recommendation is based on the considerations itemized above, in recognition of the current budget crunch, and with the prevailing goal of serving the community's needs. Alternate resolutions are provided for Council consideration of either options 1, 3 or 4 (staff does not recommend serious consideration of option 2). We will, of course, be prepared to discuss this entire report and all of the options in more detail at the Council meeting. Note As requested by the City Council at the October 7, 1991 meeting, we attempted to contact Mr. Milt Bellin at the Minnesota Department of Health, the person who reviewed the architect's plans for the water slide and suggested the revised use pattern which would eliminate the use of any full length lap lanes at the same time that the water slide is in operation. Unfortunately Mr. Bellin has not been available during this two week period. We expect to contact him next week to discuss this item in detail and we will report the results of such a meeting to the Council as soon as possible. • i r %De, } Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING BIDS FOR COMMUNITY WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91 -232 the following bids were received and opened on October 16, 1991, for construction of Community Water Slide, Improvement Project No. 1990 -24: Amount Bidder Base Bid Add Alternate Alltech Engineering Corp. $254,300 add $15,400 (total $269,700) Sheehy Construction Co. $255,300 add $15,580 (total $270,880) WHEREAS, Resolution No. 91 -203 provided $200,000 funding for this improvement, based on the architect's estimate of $182,500 for contract costs and $17,500 for architectural services; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the plans and specifications as developed by the architect provide for the quality of permanent improvement which the City Council believes is appropriate and which will provide a low- maintenance facility, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The low base bid of Alltech Engineering Corp. in the amount of $254,300 is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to enter into contract with said firm on the basis of said bid. 2. The budget for this improvement is hereby revised as follows: Item Previously approved As Revised Construction $182,500 $254,300 Contract Architectural Services 17.500 17.500 Totals $200,000 $261,800 Resolution No. 3. All costs for this project shall be allocated from the Capital Projects 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. /OCI r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0, RESOLUTION REGARDING BIDS FOR COMMUNITY WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91 -232 the following bids were received and opened on October 16, 1991, for construction of Community Water Slide, Improvement Project No. 1990 -24: Amount Bidder Base Bid Add Alternate Alltech Engineering Corp. $254,300 add $15,400 (total $269,700) Sheehy Construction Co. $255,300 add $15,580 (total $270,880) WHEREAS, Resolution No. 91 -203 provided $200,000 funding for this improvement, based on the architect's estimate of $182,500 for contract costs and $17,500 for architectural services; and WHEREAS, the Architect and City Manager have described an option to revise the plans and specifications for this improvement so as to provide a fully functional facility with acceptable design features, with a cost estimate which approximates the approved budget; and WHEREAS, Mjorud Architecture has agreed that they will provide the additional architectural services needed to revise the plans and specifications with no additional fee, but request reimbursement for direct expenses relating to engineering redesign and for the costs of printing of new plans and specifications, such costs not to exceed $1000; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that this is the most appropriate course of action for the benefit of Brooklyn Center citizens, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. All bids received and opened on October 16, 1991 are hereby rejected. 2. the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to the existing agreement with Mjorud Architecture, Inc. to redesign the plans and specifications as above described, with the City to reimburse said firm for direct expenses relating to engineering redesign and for the costs of printing new plans and specifications, such costs not to exceed $1000. Resolution No. 3. upon completion of the revision of the plans and specifications the Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Deputy City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 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. 10� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING BIDS FOR COMMUNITY WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91 -232 the following bids were received and opened on October 16, 1991, for construction of Community Water Slide, Improvement Project No. 1990 -24: Amount Bidder Base Bid Add Alternate Alltech Engineering Corp. $254,300 add $15,400 (total $269,700) Sheehy Construction Co. $255,300 add $15,580 (total $270,880) WHEREAS, Resolution No. 91 -203 provided $200,000 funding for this improvement, based on the architect's estimate of $182,500 for contract costs and $17,500 for architectural services; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that it is not appropriate to proceed further with this proposed improvement NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. All bids received and opened on October 16, 1991 for this project are hereby rejected. 2. All considerations for implementation of this project are hereby terminated. 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 10/21/91 • Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -16 AND APPROVING EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS AT HUMBOLDT SQUARE DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Yfi p, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • At the Council meeting of June 24, 1991, staff presented a report regarding the options for extending a combination sidewalk /trail along Humboldt Ave. No., adjacent to the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. Of the seven design alternatives that were presented, the consensus of the Council was that staff should approach the affected commercial property owners with the Alternatives E, A -2 and B, and attempt to negotiate the necessary easements for the preferred trail design. At this time, the property owners have indicated a preference for Alternative E, and staff has negotiated for the required easements. Preliminary plans for Alternative E are attached for reference. When originally reported to the Council, the easement costs for Alternative E were estimated as approximately $ 18,000. However, with the benefit of accurate field located property lines, examination of existing easement documents, etc., it became apparent that the size of the proposed easements could be decreased, and the value of these required easements was appraised at $ 1000 ($ 750 for Humboldt Square plus $ 250 for the Union 76 easement). After discussions with property owners and an extended process to get all the right signatures, we have now obtained the owners' agreements to execute these easements for the appraised values. Accordingly, staff has provided a resolution which establishes Improvement Project No. 1991 -16, approves purchase of the easements, and directs the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the project, based on the preferred Alternative E. If approved, the plans could be prepared over the . winter, and a project could begin early in the summer of 1992. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A resolution establishing project, approving purchase of the easements and directing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications is attached for consideration by the City Council. . i dad Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -16 AND APPROVING EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS AT HUMBOLDT SQUARE WHEREAS, the City Council on June 24, 1991 indicated that the City's pedestrian walk /trail system should be extended along the east side of Humboldt Avenue North, from 67th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, design Alternate E has been selected by the Council and accepted by the adjacent commercial property owners as the preferred design; and WHEREAS, staff has negotiated for the temporary and permanent easements necessary to construct the preferred design and the property owners have agreed to execute such easements at the appraised value established by the City Assessor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed project will be designated as: TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS AT HUMBOLDT SQUARE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -16 2. The purchase of easements required for this improvement at a total value of $ 1000 is hereby approved. 3. The City Engineer is directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of this improvement. 4. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1991 -16 is hereby established according to the following schedule: Contract $ 21,210 Contingency (15 %) 3,180 Professional Services Trail Planning Service 3,700 Right -of -Way Services 1,200 Staff Engineering (8%) 1,950 Administration (16) 245 Legal (1 %) 245 Easement Acquisition 1,000 Total Est. Project Cost $ 32,730 5. The estimated costs will be financed by Local State Aid Fund No. 2611. 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. 69th Ave. N- �I CONSTRUC,T NEW IV SIDEWALK. z-F- 1ovL5 5I pv55oN 5E2M aiap zzpLn,.cz r • ���'•� BEeM [' • �L�NT b New T7, OTJ 8EF2%m ,I �I I — umboldt Square ,. -- .r..- I -- Z — ai o — — m 1 • -- - -- \ r ,- ..- °.• °-....._.. _ 12 I � i T .,;,1 4. Wr.� Y3?: yn.0.•x• * :dar {1�':�.w w.� T Westwood Professional Services, Inc. MAY B, 1991 nEVISED 6120191 Iln Cdy M Efruoktyn Cenler _ Flumboldt Square Trail Planning AL rEFzNATnVE E i 0 _ '" - � D ♦ .;IiC �' f SGT 1 M ✓• `�_a - • - � � „�( � � 6 t� . � � � � �'Ki.17^f^b N�y�'�sV� T tt ' E . Westwood Professional Services, Inc. MAY $R 1991 The City of Brooklyn Center Humboldt Son Trail Plannin CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10 /21 /91 Agenda Item Number 16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF 66TH AVENUE AND CHOWEN AVENUE NORTH DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, ector of Public Works AZA y MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION.'��. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes As a result of the construction of Interstate Highway 94 between Broo g y n y • Boulevard and Beard Ave. No., the City acquired title to some small property parcels adjacent to the south right -of -way line. These parcels, further described as Outlots B, C and D, JODY ADDITION, are located south of the noise wall and adjacent to existing residential lots (see attached figure for Location). Because these parcels are neither large enough nor located appropriately for an foreseeable y public purpose (sewage lift station, municipal water well, playground, public building, etc.), the City Assessor has determined their dollar value and the City Engineer has contacted the adjacent residential property owners to determine if there was interest in their acquisition. Based on the response, it appears that two of the three parcels could be disposed of immediately, and the third possibly in the Spring of 1992. It is noted that while one of the parcels involved abuts two different residential properties, only one of the owners contacted was interested in its acquisition. Mr. James Neuberger of 6612 Drew Avenue North, who has indicated a willingness to acquire Outlot B, has mentioned that he would like to purchase the property to expand his garage and generally increase the size of his yard. Because the addition of Outlot B would technically afford him frontage on two public streets, the issue of two separate accesses (driveways) arose. Staff has determined that it would not recommend approving such a configuration, and the potential owner (Mr. Neuberger) has stated that he would not make such a request. Ms. Susan Spence, 6606 Chowen Avenue North, responded to staff with a desire to purchase Outlot C, but indicated that financial conditions would force her to wait until spring. Mr. Javeed Madi, of 6607 Beard Avenue North, lives adjacent • to Outlot D, and had previously assumed that the small property was already part of his lot. He indicated that he would purchase Outlot D as soon as possible, as he was using it anyway. All of the properties involved are currently being maintained by the adjacent property owners, and the purchase of these properties presents them with the opportunity of formally adding the property to their lots. Staff has determined that these parcels have little public value, and the sale of them to the adjacent land owners is appropriate. Accordingly, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution authorizing the sale of city owned property in the vicinity of 66th Ave. No. and Chowen Ave. No. is provided for consideration. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF 66TH AVENUE AND CHOWEN AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center owns real estate adjacent to the south right -of -way of Interstate Highway 94, in the vicinity of Chowen Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the adjacent property owners have expressed interest in acquiring the properties; and WHEREAS, it is determined that these City -owned properties are not essential for public use; and WHEREAS, the City Assessor has determined that the market values of Outlots B, C and D, JODY ADDITION, are $ 2,750.00, $ 700.00 and $ 37.50, respectively. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the sale of City -owned property described as Outlots B, C and D, JODY ADDITION, to the adjacent property owners at the market values is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded_by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 66/2 1 1 `-"- I �• 1 1 1 I 1 1 I t 1 I I �,► ..................... 175 :..........x..........100 . .......7S i 1 - ' 1 i 175 .. _ I /N -- -' -- �m 1 , 1 -- -- I -- --- - ---- M� , 1 s OUTLOT B r 6n "/2 1 s3. o2 (85) 2 66/3 1 2 (86) ffi 76 R- 7539.44 -` 5.66 Q 6612 1 A ®� OUTLOT C s 131 20 138.96 16.76 (87) c. 81.53 3 _ _ _ 6601 6606 135. 12 135 13 + — 80 — — — �-- OUTLOT D 60 $ 6607 1 3s 1 z $ (22) $ (11 $ $ 6606 , 6607 60 13s.�'3 "" i3s. 12 -- - - - - -- i — � 135. 18 (18) $ (15) $ $ 6606 , 17 135. 135. 17 8 I t3S (14) (1 1) 6607 I8 $ 30 3700 w ,3608 135.18 135.17 (21) (20) 3600 3508 (17) z 3500 w w 3908 3 w so (16) t35. I ( 12) 3400 135. 22 135.2 135, , i 8 0 1 25 66TH AVE. NO. F-3 60 9 1 .2� . z 0 N 1 360/ V y 3509 16 350/ 1 .z5 I z4 3) (34) CA �' (59) U I Q 3409 16 6543 1 (27) Z 5.28 135.28 Z 135.).8 (44) `" Z `" (75) `� (60) 370/ 6538 135.28 W 135.28 N 9 N 2 6539 W 6538 15 > 135.28 90 Q (42) (35) N � (58) U 2 6537 Q Q 6536 I5 6537 32 �+ 5.32 (45) W 61) ( Y 2 6,533 R 13 135.32 135.32 ( 3) N 32 Z 6532 ° I I � p / o � 135.3 135 . 38 ~ (41) 6533 CJUU ��UU GiIUULS 11 lo: 10/16/91 3 W 6M2 `� (36) W. U i� a 3 653/ y U 6530 ( 57 ) (46) (� (A r MJM .ST ?7 ��IS •+Vt CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12 ZZL91 Agenda Item Number / ®r_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -21, CONTRACT 1991 -Q, SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT - VARIOUS LOCATIONS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works r MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: i L-7- 1,� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Improvement Project No. 1991 -21, Sidewalk Replacement- Various Locations, has been completed by Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co., of Minneapolis. The City Council accepted their proposal per Resolution No. 91 -224 and a contract was subsequently executed. Due to a minor overestimation of quantities, the actual final value of work is $ 552.50 less than the original contract. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co. Note: In the past, replacement of defective sidewalk panels has been performed by the City's Street Department. Analysis of the sidewalk panels this year had indicated that the volume of work required was well beyond the scope of that normally performed by the Street Department. Because the sidewalk system is growing steadily to serve the needs of Brooklyn Center, and at the same time wearing out, it is probable that the amount of annual sidewalk replacement will increase, well beyond that which can be handled by City crews. Accordingly, staff anticipates that it will be necessary (and cost - effective) to annually assemble lists of defective sidewalk panels and to award construction contracts to construction firms who specialize in concrete work. The City's local Municipal State Aid street fund, Accounts 2600 and 2611 provide funding for this purpose. r . RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Gunderson Brothers is attached for consideration. • i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -21, CONTRACT 1991 -Q, SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT - VARIOUS LOCATIONS WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT - VARIOUS LOCATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $ 11,532.50 $ 10,980.00 2. The value of work actually performed is $552.50 less than the original contract, due to a minor overestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $ 10,980.00. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10 /21 /91 • Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -23, SEWER REPLACEMENT AT BROOKLYN DRIVE, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, DISktor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUND IARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES 1 As reported to the Council at its last meeting (10/07/91), Public Works Department personnel were reviewing and analyzing the report obtained from the sewer televising project. Of specific concern was the section of sewer immediately upstream of the portion which collapsed last May, near Lift Station 1 (see attached map). Staff has determined, after viewing the tapes, that approximately 110 feet of the 24" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) is in danger of collapse. In May, the cave -in near the lift station occurred during daylight hours and was immediately visible, and fortunately, reported by a resident. This allowed City forces to get a head start on by -pass pumping and, consequently, no residences were affected by backed -up sewage. Without the benefit of immediate notification, staff has estimated that up to 200 residential basements could be affected by another failure, before by -pass pumps could be operational. For this reason, staff recommends replacement of this pipe in a non - emergency situation, if possible. The City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the replacement of the sewer and if approved, the project could occur yet this fall. While the majority of work would be performed on City -owned property, a temporary easement will be required from the adjacent church (6030 Xerxes Ave. No.), to allow access during construction and provide an area for the storage of equipment, materials, • etc. The total project costs are estimated at this time as $ 48,435. Note 1: While we expect costs to be substantially lower than that figure, we have included an unusually high (50 %) contingency because of the potentially difficult conditions (soil types, dewatering,inclement weather, etc.) which may require unusually high mobilization costs for a small project. Also, we estimate an additional expenditure of $15,000 will be necessary in the spring, to re -pave the driveway /access road affected by last May's emergency project and this purposed replacement. Staff recommends contracting separately for these improvements, with a construction firm who specializes in paving work. Note 2: As reported at the last Council meeting, it was discovered that the sewer line located under I- 94/694, also upstream of Lift Station No. 1, was of a similar material and condition than that which is proposed to be replaced in this project (24" Corrugated Metal Pipe). The Capital Improvement Program had scheduled this pipe for replacement in 1995. Staff has viewed the televised report and intend to present a report at the next Council meeting recommending immediate replacement, as a separate project this winter. In addition, we expect to recommend replacement of one or more other segments of sewer pipe under a third contract to be completed early next summer. Note 3: Videotapes of these segments of the sewer, will be available for viewing at the City Council meeting. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing project, approving plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -23, SEWER REPLACEMENT AT BROOKLYN DRIVE APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that there exists a portion of the City's sewer system which requires immediate replacement; and WHEREAS, the required replacement is beyond the scope of usual maintenance performed by City forces. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1991 -23, Sewer Replacement at Brooklyn Drive, is hereby established. 2. Said plans and specifications as prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved. 3. The Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Deputy City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 4. The estimated project costs are established as follows: Contract $ 28,750 Contingency (50 %) 14,375 Subtotal Construction $ 43,125 Easement Acquisition 1,000 Staff Engineering (8%) 3,450 Admin. & Legal (2%) 860 Total Est. Project Cost $ 48,435 RESOLUTION NO. 5. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Sanitary Sewer 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. 66TH AV N. e 0 0 -651 -651 O_ E&w AVE. 65 -B.OR3 N 65- 8DR1 ry 5- B.DR.4 --'' 65 - B.DR. - �B.DR�� cv 300 -65 30-64 64 -B.DR X�� 64 -B; l� A jC - _ % - -� 64- B.OR.2 8.0 y ,' - - 30C' -64 \� ' CENTRAL O.R- B.DR.3 PARK O.R. - B.OR.1 B.D k 'A OR 340 N. 63 -B.DRI 558 -8-)-0 350- 8 38 C IVIC 49- O - B.0 , l � X � 63 - B.DR.2 62 ` \ CENTER 340 ROAD O \\ �`S� / \ C HALL / N.R.- B.OR.2 N.R- B.DR.I k \ \ / \ i 300 � � { Y\ o S.C.P. R O APDR. M.R Ov 30- KR. MR. O S.C.P -; �- GARDEN\ �� O a 305 _ CITY 0 30-62 92 3OD P ARK - ( A sr_ S U o SU c\j B. R- 3 Of 224 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1991 -23 - 0-360-1 1 0 8 S. �- / I N 30-612 / �C' o A MAY EMERGENCY REPAIR* Q o s.C.P -J.M !y ANW ti 30-61 cY 16 FORCE MAIN GOVT. SERV. CENTS M f_� O S.C.P.-J.M.D. N } O 29 -601 30 -6020 ,�. nti S.C.P- J.M.D. ✓; ti i o of D / Fse> Af od 10 ORn -ola. _ p I Uxo- r� Lp ' •sn ovoJ �e �z)t2o i " f_px Wulf ! �6 as -uPe ° ��YO Sri a 1 x o'#, : ozaa a oao •o i IP�s 'G ux b o eke i F o , szr o sx oa oS0i5ovP gee . as b atn b�. TH .fi w � Ff Lrt , � o.a ->ol 071Qa 01A y� 4' r ` b •l �� ^so7 rr e xo l � S �- ti ? YYYJJJ 1w] i i t),31 �, 1 �s rr rco -�� - ^ ' �o u�,or I eo e a e [ ,0[ n \ ] E d•Tlq t °'19] b i � 1f - Q a o 1 112 Ia �O• ero' •r 'e. ( pa .,� ,a i g• C1'7�1 1 � - 15 A i♦e eo ' b' � � a ea I a xfv o oz 6 - .o -ro . �..• a l� , bE ° :P "� � - - %,�.. .. 8 :eaz o .sa o'o ' r M•� v A 1 3 s i pp o �'8'u «. Q p,�d• L.a a �(�1 -. y p a -esr. 1 $z sz p:o as • u ♦ Ran E ° r a �a eft vL 5 0 "' . ..Ln A, a9[ -MMae[ a s .�. A ♦ _- - — O o e Os S. is $ 0 z 6 s -oS s OJ es -lS o Sf9 a oszxP s ¢ xS Oxe i oa ev ° a ,�^ j r' jq f %' see �a 'ax sea o I..ev��� ba, . •... o Sab7Yd5:ev n �a a' o,� °' w D b ^" �I ':�� I 6 �� w b f sox •� t r mzo °� ♦•. sxa o " is st d o 3F eF'o a e b tF5 C4ze `` - p a a o•a o a Cl a - ee D a Oi a�e0. a. NO i O)I8. a � :^ e a �]7 p ) bi t t _ 0'Ne t. a,• - P. .� w a S � � agar: � pl r � a4 a !II PREVI( - Ly`% s=~ ,r.,. „ . , °' g' o r -an oa q7a °i_ozn aozr7 - �I H ry T ELEVISEDt a �� Y ae; ' " ° °� ♦��1I �a.;��� _ .,.o saT a.4iil -.l oe:�L:��_.• --�"` A.. � .: ° ��p i {v.ao. a71! Sj �� a i xa scr O. e a o -s3 iEY ; 3� - 0 . >s o ' 177 - p s b as acl 8,•e ss• a -o 6iif o l"4, e O:fat 0 e 6 37s a P Q 3 + ))rs`" e♦ b j - y e p a a i —a a 1� sos � i . r 'e \ {V+�C I t >¢ I iNC ESTER ILA .y p e 0 �}"t�T -t6 } fY 0 �.` J \� �_L� Tf•q ra- O �,i p !L 4 1 iYx aY7Sf3 � OOOOOttttt 'su l,. p �ti w o sz7 ( •P� �y,� W } c r` r ° sb • -ast 441 '.�. ° —1 1 asO s si we 'RT. < ° I9. .is ]Rea °s zo3a1 - u ° ae s \ .♦ -s ] ae ♦a a MH x dsi'� 1 ' Sir a sa ds b. 6am a OQS OOTVx es[ [one s ix o]sx z oszi_z us jz o f zvs DRo4 fa Mb ?riM40773 ra. o si sa 6 -aoa � l es soa oP -30, X07 E6 TH AVE 4 "� f l es M v -t . P ♦t f•a Y♦a F, •� e M e 6S -15x2 0 a� n: a asy 2 1 k ♦ a• 74a -e OOiry } 7 Y ♦ 1. 1 u.z S , g O }o+ > n[ [u : i i 1 o3Qt eo.3dd �,1 1 °. aaun a aa • b♦. -w a a esa `n ' i z a ti D R � 4.,. to J,}j� 'e» m zP d . v a o a i . $ APP. \ !Dy ) w as oa a•aMf N 1u o ILr ♦a Nr .a �' 7 B p ) ao PF30 to - [[:] S4tl`e_a 3 681 .pR,' �'• c .a ;44V4',, yp oF23G 8 m l eDP; O ° t, '•�� at R HNO p s draLP.♦ _., �II aeo ... i_ A• �s u,� a pp °xLD w x;4700 LFt ��, j ua a•a P - ��L. _ M... :7 `,; e o'id -Ha$ ua S. /]�11 - /'�}�`� �{eo7T7 c IISro . a eas�a(..a a e b nE �o • i t 2 LT , fY' • was .. tit o.e 4 J S e. EL E 4 ea -w� r •a 1 si od3 O >oa \ a ^ ]s ..•i s4 is r ei -♦ 1 f 7 ... Sa a ♦00-eD 0 C:fa a la a Osoe -E$1 ' o a o se0.- 80is -e�i s6 as ae. -' o sxv�3m -e;l a 1 (DA. P O1 ] os o i i a s s ato 6 1Z0�3 Aso ua 4• a .ss 8 d, i IM z a ' aS ♦T . 4 ja. "' g llau sua o _ l ou -ax G♦ca o �{ oua�a�}aa eOFZ aeae �°°'�'�� ° � s ��,tieC'i S7e�wRi aso p4. !.I � b se° `^l. O [ o'. µ »�, ae• aoaat 4i Jlra[i a: a,.,.� , y tt M :e•e 1 - e� aSE si 86 e: ae t rn•'1Ydssaos3Q aoj7o 1DJ ItP - ` �" -� o / �• ♦L All w a r r• �ateo32i i d'n �� �uiers •z �i bn ¢I R T r a s as P c a } }ftq 11 t acr au+ °jec a r-� ( 4.z °sz�' w r i o s os o_ os w 3. d♦ o s Pzso (}A • s s s,1 ae a " y � 4 .sa O3 d�za5a6 )oo eot t'- S' �° W rt 1 b MS ]_s see aP eei Je : \ \l } P ai sP Uy�� <za Yt V -a N r o. p.'ac r.a..ot V s rI f � i sG roi �� ais� )3b 835II do;t73� °321e fs & �JS]f a 73t= dE)32 - d b,3YF i0 � scr -ayo �.a-av ♦as it E i s .ce, dr +r Sze - sor J.' o aslo srtz re�, " ' as5s3�lasdpzY 3 Eatav '� '$ '� , s ♦ q n co c0 sI -� 0)7 033 q0 031-�3� -� °n�8 i I fib. < r - +yn cam e9 0)52- 0 ' 1 .. i9'z °te o b 7TQ d o7F1 o .ae.3, 11 as cos R �li a !� g bn m sit b fo-t.CU» asr ersr -. n i 1 1 Fyn a o.. g .. 'nl� 'A I wi r��j' f wa (o SsS • On sa♦ l� 1 of o31( de P332 gc of �$ �/-+ a _ of s zU u iQ t S ♦s - r4 d13 - il b]i 16 Sl - i e A n 1� z sep>. e b 7♦9s -F5 3f d $ �"`u se ��� sa ea a ) $7t.. ro'iaaemea "� ur •o w "` • 7 ' C b o II tz . �s a -sea'_ . � ae[ a Sao cn �:l c abr nxeze �i lac. ' • � V t ' \ Y =♦a se � : .. ,� ee > b • '�Ja'� r I l a i ee t1 bx e \ / sxLOe s> - .. �; - _p J, •s a> ```-, " ?I �fbSB paa k: . ♦ .O i f f ue I �¢ K lo O, , o:u -nod ,iEH -manna Qi as - eRpl _ 0-7 >f d 0 I's -k o se -Aa 1 k '�' „'` y p olb zeSe oor, o M L aex f y [HS - i.. . Q � � / 1 ♦� -36 O� b g' ^., .: � Nre eN k � , - er e E -o tx a i ♦� s �� i (5 a b {. �`-•: ,� 'a \ TpEP e4 E M� -L• E ET 4 iLa -EC ` {E E• i't1 a 02= 382 d PPROX. -30Q �.F E..� Q n� t � � e u m y \ 71 s k lOSei 1• ^ o,et.u; esa 11 J u 1.i \. \. ��. 1. [y`■ ae xx� es _ V', ,CMP ON D A x �, T D ��/' t• noon �. an -u r zs s , QncJ -ox 6 7s= 1 f ^.gsss ° SQaag FS4e - p i dL a b _ Isos ca sL u ,. pas isj' x s p N too aes•tf o �E.E OZe[noxe P >a saw b� F o f3a as d; �,\ , -as fit• aiu '. sL �.° x, :• 3]0 33Q a -6327 a ° L91 . 0_0 ` O" sa U p^°tt s LAKE 'I "L ° IT " R � L —!� �a Tom, a� / e 1 'l� 1 eJ ata: ° osx -aez 3 t._ t �� C/ T Y b4Q0: l 1 . -uxl: r --T .._52ND AVE.N `1 {{ y 'p� [ 8sa.ai E a•m- 60-39 0 3eo home Osa -ua oa i s z ° �•, a r, :Pa[ u o °zi• °:.. as [°' S g7 .a. -si ion - so: 51 STAVE. N w i o]e -aax° vOS.oa pss -sd 2 ; s°'1 1 •I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date I0/2I /9I Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUNDJARY 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. • 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 10/21/91 ) 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 ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- DOUGLAS MESKE 5400 KNOX AVE N 382 DOUGLAS MESKE 5400 KNOX AVE N 383 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 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 councii Meeting Date / Agenda item Mmnber DDDRCC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE rr: rrt:: trrr#**** rrsrtrrrsrt srirrrrrrrrr *rrrrrrirrrrrssrr *rrri *rrr DEPARTMENT APPROVAL Director of Finance Signature - title ** O� MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: * ** * * * * * #* No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: su lemental t PP sheets attached I have attached a resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, would allow me to write -off certain accounts receivables that have been carried on the City's books since 1988 and 1989. Attempts to collect the recivables have been exhausted. The accounts have • a e either been turned over to the City's collection agency or to the Police Department. In addition, the Planning and Inspection Department has been notified not to issue any permits to the companies who are delinquent on their water meter or hydrant meter rental. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council pass the resolution. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL -------------------------------------------- Pass the attached resolution. /0 0, 1 (DDDRWO) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES ----------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Manager has reported the following accounts receivables are uncollectible. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the City Manager to write -off from the City's records as uncollectible the following accounts receivables: INVOICE NO. DATE DUE FROM PURPOSE AMOUNT -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----------------- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 6773 07/14/88 Ferris Sod Farms Water Meter Rental $ 1,197.58 7219 03/21/89 Todd Michael Schermann Repair of Street Sign 33.67 7259 03/31/89 Keller Construction Hydrant Meter Rental 235.00 7273 06/19/89 Keller Construction Hydrant Meter Rental 18.30 7687 12/14/89 Michael A. Patraw Repair of Hydrant 1,163.66 Total $ 2,648.21 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. (ARTAG) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB --------------------------------------- WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the City a gift of two thousand dollars ($2,000) and has designated that it be used for the "Entertainment in the Parks" recreation program; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude and direct that it be used for "Entertainment in the Parks ". 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 10/21/ 91 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 Submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. DEPT. APPROVAL: 0 :�2 Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ' G 7 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached g • The City Council on October 7 1991 considered Plannin g Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to build a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at the southeast quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North. This application was extensively reviewed and deliberated by the City Council and it was determined that the standards for special use permit could not be met by the applicant based on the plan which had been submitted. The City Council directed the staff to prepare a resolution denying this application on the grounds that the standards for special use permit are not met. Recommendation A resolution has been prepared for the City Council's consideration which would deny Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. and is recommended for the Council's adoption. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY PDO FOOD STORES, INC. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 91018 was submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc., seeking site and building plan and special use permit approval to build a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at the southwest quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, Section 35 -220 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the five standards for special use permits listed in said section of the ordinance are met; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the majority of the Planning Commission believed it was necessary to revise the plans submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. as a means of meeting the standards for special use permits; and WHEREAS, the applicant, during the public hearing, indicated it was not willing to revise the site and building plans in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Planing Commission directed the City staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council the denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 on the grounds that the standards for special use permits are not met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a duly called meeting held on September 26, 1991 adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -5 recommending the denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center considered said application at a duly called City Council meeting on October 7, 1991; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all of the materials submitted, the record of the Planning Commission's review of this matter, and information supplied and testimony presented by the applicants and their representatives as well as information and testimony presented by other interested parties; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City Council has, furthermore, considered the applicant's proposal in light of the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to revise the plans submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. in the following manner as a means of meeting the five standards for special use permits: 1. Provide an access off of the frontage road no closer to 66th Avenue North than the existing access serving the Atkins Mechanical site. 2. Provide a site design that clearly leads patrons to exit the site via a shared access leading to the existing median opening on 66th Avenue North. 3. Consideration of a site design that might lead to the elimination of some gasoline dispensing pumps which would lead to better circulation on the site. 4. Consideration of only one access point from the frontage road serving this site. 5. Modification to the plans for the canopy to provide recessed lights to avoid light glare to the neighboring property. 6. Elimination of the neon band on the canopy. 7. Modification to the plan to include a minimum 6' - high masonry wall to provide appropriate screening of the site to the residential property to the east; and WHEREAS, the City has received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewing the PDQ Plan as it relates to T.H. 252 indicating traffic congestion concerns and the need to keep the first entrance from the frontage road setback from 66th Avenue North as far as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to deny Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. on the grounds that the plans submitted to date do not demonstrate that the standards for special use permit contained in Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 have been met. Specifically,, the City Council finds that the standards are not, or cannot, be met on the basis of the following: RESOLUTION NO. 1. The arrangement of the access drives on the proposed site plan does not lead motorists to exit the site via the joint driveway to the median opening in 66th Avenue North. The result of this arrangement will be for many cars exiting the site onto the frontage road and creating traffic congestion at the intersection of the frontage road and 66th Avenue North immediately east of T. H. 252. This is deemed to pose an unacceptable risk of congestion effecting T. H. 252 and is at variance with standard (d) of Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the City Ordinances. 2. The proposed access design provides an access which is too close to 66th Avenue North. An appropriate access design for this site would have only one access onto the frontage road no closer to 66th Avenue North than the existing access serving the current Atkins Mechanical site. This design also causes an unacceptable risk for traffic congestion at 66th Avenue North and T.H. 252 which is at variance with standard (d) of Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the City Ordinances. 3. The proposed lighting for the canopy is not properly recessed or shielded and will cause glare beyond the boundaries of the property in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of Section 35- 712 of the City Ordinances and is, therefore, at variance with standard (e) of Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the City Ordinances. 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 -21 -91 Agenda Item Numbe r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 1500 GALLON WATER TANK DEPT. APPROVAL: poifti, aa -1/ Patti Page, Depu City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONIlVIENDATION: Az FF No comments to supplement this report Comments below PP attached P below/ attached EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) An appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget for the purchase of a used truck and water tank. • After much research it was determined a used truck could not be purchased for the amount of money appropriated in the 1991 budget. A decision was then made that a new water tank could be installed on an existing vehicle for use during the summer months. The water tank would be removed during the winter months to allow use of the truck as a sander. Three quote were received for a water tank. I recommend acceptance of the low quote from Ruffridge Johnson Equipment Co. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 1500 GALLON WATER TANK WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget for the purchase of a used truck and water tank; and WHEREAS, it was determined it would not be possible to purchase a used truck and tank for the amount of money appropriated in the 1991 budget; and WHEREAS, it was determined a new water tank could be installed on a truck for use in the summer and removed from the truck so it could be used as a sanding truck in the winter; and WHEREAS, three quotations for the water tank were received as follows: COMPANY QUOTE Ruffridge Johnson Equip. Co. $ 5,212.00 Arrow Tank and Engineering Co. $12,130.00 MacQueen Equipment Co. $16,110.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) 1500 water tank from Ruffridge Johnson Equipment Co., in the amount of $5,212.00 is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. O� Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 21, 1991: COMMERCIAL KENNEL f� Snyder Bros. Drug Store 1296 Brookdale Center mil• C Sanitarian 4k FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Chuck Wagon Grill 5720 Morgan Ave. N. g g Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Harmonettes 6155 Earle Brown Dr. n �• St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. P Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Kraemer Heating 7441 Dallas Court t 11�z�Cill Preferred Mechanical Services, Inc. 712 West 77h St. Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Maddy 5540 Aldrich Ave. N. Craig & Barbara Benell 1807 70th Ave. N. Renewal: ROI Properties, Inc. 6306 Brooklyn Drive Douglas & Kathleen Williams 5107 Drew Ave. N. Clifford Lane /Dorothy Ernst 6927 June Ave. N. .Michael Goodwin 5006 Howe Lane Leslie Reinhardt 5713 Humboldt Ave. N. John & Edna Moryn 4207 Lakeside, JJ130 Jonathan Cain 4207 Lakeside, #135 E. Alan Knudson 5547 Lyndale Ave. N. Carin Rudolph 5318 -20 Queen Ave. N. Casmir & Doris Stachowski 5327 -29 Queen Ave. N. Tom & Wendy Wurr 5422 72nd Circle N. Direc of Plann ng and Inspection GENERAL APPROVAL: P. P0 0� P. Page, Dep8ty Clerk