Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1991 07-08 CCP Regular Session
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 8, 1991 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Reports 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. June 24, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Presentation: a. Twin Lake Water Ski Association 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:05 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 91008 submitted by Welsh Companies, Inc. requesting approval of a sign variance for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle-Brown Drive. These signs are all 4' x 8' (32 sq. ft.) space for lease signs which exceed the limits allowed for real estate signs under Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2.1, 3 and 4. -This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 16, 1991 meeting at which time the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request on the grounds that the standards for a sign ordinance variance were not met. The Commission, however, recommended approval of an ordinance amendment which would modify the current sign regulations for space for lease signs. 1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- July 8, 1991 b. Planning Commission Application No. 90013 submitted by Peter Houser requesting preliminary registered land survey approval to subdivide into two tracts the land occupied by Carson's and the Midas Muffler shop and the parking in between at Brookdale. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its June 27, 1991 meeting. 10. Ordinances: (7:15 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Vacating a Water Main Easement in Twin View Meadows -This ordinance was offered for a first reading on June 10, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on June 19, 1991, and is offered this evening for a second reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances (Trespassing on School Property) -This ordinance was offered for a first reading on June 10, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on June 19, 1991, and is offered this evening for a second reading. c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow a Lesser Buffer Where an Industrial Use Abuts an Institutional Use -This item was first read on June 10, 1991, was published on June 19, 1991 and is offered for a public hearing and adoption. This ordinance amendment is the result of a recommendation by the Planning Commission to allow parking within 15' of a property line where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional R1 use at a property line or a street line. d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Hamm's Second Addition) -This item was first read on June 10, 1991, was published on June 19, 1991, and is offered for public hearing and adoption. This is a housekeeping ordinance amendment that describes the land rezoned from C -1 (service /office) to R -5 (multiple residential) under Planning Commission Application No. 91007 submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. The land is an approximate 30' x 100' strip of land along the back of 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. e. An Ordinance Vacating Easements in Olson's Island View Terrace (Atkins Property - southeast corner of 66th & T.H. 252) -This ordinance is offered for a first reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- July 8, 1991 11. Discussion Items: a. Business Ethics Policy - Several updates are recommended to reflect actual policies in several departments. b. Reforestation Opportunities 1. Resolution Authorizing a 1991 Reforestation Program 2. Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Reforestation Grant Proposal, Pursuit of Designation as a Tree City USA, Enrollment as a Global Releaf Cooperator, and Declaring an Arbor Day Observance C. Proposed Office Building at North Lyn Apartments Site -Mr. David Sellergren an attorney representing Chazin Properties, owner of the North Lyn Apartments, has requested an appearance before the City Council to discuss a proposal whereby Chazin Properties could subdivide off a portion of the North Lyn Apartments to create a parcel capable of an office development. d. Juvenile Smoking and Tobacco Use Control Ordinances 12. Resolutions: *a. Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget and Awarding Contract for Algae Treatment *b. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of John Vogel c. Approving Alignment /Geometric Layout Plan for the Improvement of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 -This resolution formalizes the consensus expressed by the City Council at the June 24, 1991, public informational meeting. d. Amending the General Fund Budget, Appropriating Funds and Authorizing Remodeling of Park Shelter Building at Twin Lake Beach - Consideration of this item was tabled at the June 24, 1991, City Council meeting. e. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Removal of Houses on 69th Avenue North, Phase III, Improvement Project No. 1991 -14 *f. Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract for Parking Lot Lighting System Improvements at Civic Center, Improvement Project No. 1991 -18 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- July 8, 1991 *g. Establishing Project, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Replacement of Sidewalk Sections Along Brooklyn Boulevard, Improvement Project No. 1991 -04, Contract 1991 -E *h. Establishing Project, Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract for Sanitary Sewer Repair on Woodbine Lane at Camden Avenue, Improvement Project No. 1991 -12A *i. Establishing Project, Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract for Sanitary Sewer Repair on 5th Street North, Improvement Project No. 1991 -12B *j. Establishing Project, Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract for Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, Improvement Project No. 1991 -08 *k. Approving Contract with the University of Minnesota for Canada Goose Population Management *1. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 07/08/91) 13. Performance Guarantee Release: *a. Johnson Controls, Inc., 1801 67th Avenue North *b. Hoffmann Engineering, 6530 James Avenue North *14. Consideration of Specified License: a. Temporary On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for St. Alphonsus Church *15. Licenses 16. 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 JUNE 24, 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 7:07 p.m. The meeting was held in Constitution Hall of the Community Center. 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, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, and Council Secretary Ann Odden. OPENING CEREMONIES Councilmember Celia Scott 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 reported he had met with the Association for Non - Smokers, Minnesota and discussed the possibility of the City receiving a grant for the purpose of decreasing sales of cigarettes to minors. He stated the group had a proposal which included an education program, and stricter penalties for sellers found in violation. Possible ordinances had been suggested, which if adopted, would result in Brooklyn Center having one of the toughest programs in the metro area to combat sales of cigarettes to youths. He supported the idea and felt it would dovetail nicely with the City's existing DARE program. The Council concurred with the Mayor's suggestion. 6/24/91 _ 1 i a There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene directing staff to draft an ordinance expressing the City's willingness to pursue the educational grant and combat sales of cigarettes to minors. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmernbers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. None were removed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 10, 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of June 10, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -154 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MOTOR FUEL DISPENSING CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM UPGRADE, IMPROVEMENT NO. 1991 -15 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -155 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -07 (REPLACEMENT OF A PORTION OF TRAIL IN CENTRAL PARK, AND SURFACING OF TRAIL ON 54TH AVENUE EXTENSION SOUTH OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE) The motion for adoption r he ado of the p foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 6/24/91 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 91 -156 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990-D, STREET RECONSTRUCTION ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE/66TH AVENUE FROM SHINGLE CREEK TO T.H. 252, AND ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -157 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 06/24/91) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -158 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF RECYCLED BUILDING MATERIALS IN MUNICIPALLY- FUNDED CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING PROJECTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -159 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE ROTARY CLUB OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: 6/24/91 - 3 - AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Davanni's 5937 Summit Dr. Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Metropolitan Transit Comm. 6845 Shingle Crk. Pky. AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Avenue ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Charank's Mini - Donuts 1274 Desoto St. Betsy Medley 1762 Canyon Lane Patty Pratt 906 - 60th Ave. N. R. J. Food Concessions 59 E. George St. Nancy Rockwood 3404 Silver Lake Road RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: Tom and Dorothy Storie 5607 Camden Ave. N. Thomas B. Egan 5239 -41 Drew Ave. N. Patrick Menth 5302 Fremont Ave. N. Lyndon and Carole Carlson 5819 Halifax Ave. N. Joseph A. McFadden 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #316 William and Nancy Dahlquist 4700 Lakeview Ave. N. Henry Ulhorn 5207 E. Twin Lake Blvd. L. H. Hanggi 3725 - 47th Ave. N. Jim Stalberger /Al Juhnke 3129 - 49th Ave. N. Myrna L. Hubert 5300 - 70th Circle N. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Cole's Gift Shop 2200 Freeway Blvd. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL HEARING REGARDING IMPROVEMENT OF 69TH AVENUE BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY The City Manager reviewed this item for the Council indicating four informational meetings had been held on this item previously, and notices had been sent to all property owners in the area. The Council was requested to finalize the layout plan to allow staff and consultants to complete the development of Stage 1 of final plans and cost estimates for the project. 6/24/91 -4- The City Manager indicated the proposal was similar to the plan reviewed by the Council at their April 22, 1991, meeting with the following exceptions: 1) The revised plan showed construction of a cul -de -sac on June Avenue, just north of 69th Avenue; 2) The revised plan showed a number of "potential tree planting areas" on both sides of 69th Avenue and in the center island; and 3) The revised plan included an optional plan for the location of the proposed trail along the north side of 69th Avenue between France Avenue and Palmer Take. The project called for a four -step process for development of plans for fencing, berming, landscaping and property extensions. The City Manager noted engineering consultants had requested approval of a signal system at France Avenue and 69th and that the addition of the June Avenue cul -de -sac to the plan could impact the negotiations for the purchase of property on the northeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard g P P P tY 3'n and 69th Avenue. The revised plan layout dated June 17, 1991, had been sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue, and they had been invited to attend the public informational meeting to discuss the plan. Sue Mason of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. presented details of the project. The Director of Public Works showed slides of center islands of various widths throughout the metro area. He indicated the center islands proposed for this project were of wider widths for general attractiveness and to allow maximum plantings. In regard to the median, Councilmember Cohen questioned who was responsible for maintenance and how it would be funded. The Director of Public Works responded the City would maintain it, and funds would come from the General Fund. Councilmember Rosene confirmed that if the median were smaller, it would still require approximately the same maintenance. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public informational hearing regarding improvement of 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway at 7:35 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. A number of residents from the area were present and spoke, including several citizens from June Avenue, Halifax Avenue, Indiana Avenue, Drew Avenue, and Ewing Avenue. All were interested in the new traffic patterns which would result in the area depending on the final plan approved. LaVern Peterson, 6918 June Avenue; and Michael Bice, 6932 June Avenue; spoke in favor of a cul -de -sac on June Avenue. Mr. Peterson questioned whether the boulevard would be landscaped or fenced. The City Manager responded the City tentatively planned to acquire three businesses in the area. When the land was redeveloped in the future, landscaping or fencing issues would be addressed, but were not considered as part of this project. David Grass, 6919 Halifax Avenue; Jim Steenberg, 6907 Halifax Avenue; Kris Kosloski, 6930 Halifax Avenue; and John LaChance, 6912 Halifax Avenue; all spoke to express 6/24/91 - 5 - I concern about the potential for increased traffic on Halifax depending on the status o Indiana Avenue. The Council discussed the ros and cons of closing Indiana, or uttin P g P g a cul -de -sac on Indiana Avenue. Mr. Grass presented a petition from the neighborhood opposed to allowing a cul -de -sac on Indiana, on the basis it would unfairly add to traffic congestion on Halifax. The petition further requested the plan be modified to allow traffic on 69th to turn onto Indiana and also onto Grimes. Mr. Steenburg felt putting a median across in front of Indiana and restricting certain turns would result in an increase in traffic on Halifax. Ms. Kosloski was concerned about the safety of the children in the area, noting traffic tended to travel at high speeds along Halifax. She favored leaving the median open at Indiana. Mr. LaChance indicated a number of motorists used Halifax Avenue as a cut - through and suggested eliminating the advantage of doing so by installing a three -way stop sign at 70th and Halifax, one at 70th and Indiana, and one at 70th and June. The Council felt this was a good suggestion and agreed to consider it. During later discussion of location of the proposed trail, Mr. LeChance spoke to suggest limitation of curves on the trail on the north side of 69th Avenue. Carol Fourre, 6921 Indiana Avenue; Tedd and Lynn Bennethum, 6918 Indiana Avenue; preferred to make Indiana a dead -end street. In general, residents of Indiana were willing to accept diminished access to their property to lessen the traffic on the street. Bob Folsted, who lives between Ewing and France on 69th, questioned the status of Ewing at 69th under the proposal. The City Manager responded under the proposed plan the median would be closed, but right in, right out turns would be allowed. Richard Alberico, 3701 Urban Avenue; questioned the proximity of the trail to the northern ro er line. Sue Ma P p ty son of SEH, Inc. responded it would be approximately 70 feet from the property line. Mr. Alberico requested the City put a seven -foot privacy /security fence along the area. Jody Welton, 6842 Drew Avenue; and Ernie Erickson, 6800 Drew Avenue; requested the Council to consider the privacy of the residents of the south side also. Councilmember Pedlar responded that residents on both sides needed to be protected as much as possible. Later Mr. Erickson spoke to address the issue of traffic signals near France as proposed by Mr. LaChance and to concur with his remarks. Jim Lane, 17210 12th Avenue North, Plymouth, was a property owner in the area, but did not reside there. He was interested in how the Council's final decision would impact the value of the property he owned, based upon the access allowed. The City Manager stated that would be answered as a part of the property purchase negotiation process. i 6/24/91 _ 6 - I Some anonymous members of the audience addressed their concerns as well. A woman who lived on Urban Avenue felt the wide median in her area resulted in putting the p g sidewalk closer to her home. The City Manager responded the wider median caused traffic to drive more slowly and had better aesthetics from a design standpoint. Another anonymous woman suggested a temporary traffic signal, similar to those located near schools, to be located on 74th and operating during times when church was in session at St. Alphonsus. In regard to the issue of stop signs and /or traffic signals near West Palmer Lake Drive, an anonymous woman felt there were safety concerns due to the proximity to the school. She indicated residents of the area were planning to petition for stop signs in the area. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. The Council discussed the concerns of the residents at length. Glen Van Wormer, with SEH, Inc. outlined a traffic analysis of the area and indicated the proposal as outlined caused a decrease in traffic on most streets in the area with the exception of Halifax and part of France. He presented the likely traffic impact of various alternatives regarding dead -end and cul -de -sac issues. Councilmember Cohen noted several of the discussion issues presented had engineering and technical ramifications; also, there were cases when what residents of one area preferred was in conflict with the wishes of residents of another street. He suggested the Council arrive at a consensus for each street discussed and incorporate these remarks into a decision later. The Council concurred with this suggestion. During the course of the discussion, the Councilmembers made the following observations or suggestions: Councilmember Pedlar stated he was initially opposed to the expansion of 69th Avenue. Because a lot of residents and their properties were impacted, he encouraged them to express their opinions about the proposal so that the resulting project would take their needs into account wherever possible. He suggested berms and plantings on the south side of the property to increase privacy for residents of the area. Regarding the trail and possible fencing on the north side of the project, he suggested staff mitigate this issue rather than Council and bring back for review. Councilmember Cohen noted allowing a cul -de -sac or dead -end on particular streets would have a likely impact on property values. The City Manager concurred, noting the amount of access taken or given to a street is a value in itself. Councilmember Cohen felt the Council needed to exercise caution in making decisions without extensive review to avoid 6/24/91 -7- engineering the project from the Council table. He felt consultants should be asked to review the Council's consensus remarks, taking into consideration residents' concerns. Mayor Paulson commented the City had spent a lot of public money on the project and felt it was important to have it done in a first class manner and maximize its function so that it would be an asset to the community. He thanked residents for their input and good suggestions in several areas. Councilmember Scott felt safety concerns of residents along various streets should receive a high priority. She pointed out a high percentage of traffic in the area is not generated by residents of Brooklyn Center. She favored placing a cul -de -sac on June Avenue because she felt it was a dangerous intersection. In regard to the status of Indiana Avenue, she did not support closing or allowing a cul -de -sac because she felt it added unfairly to the traffic burden on Halifax. Regarding the Indiana Avenue intersection, Councilmember Rosene felt the proposal was an agreeable compromise. He favored attempting to minimize the traffic impact on Halifax and considering the installation of traffic signals. On the issue of the trail location, Councilmember Rosene preferred to see a trail with gentle curves, but not too close to the property line. The Council arrived at a consensus on the following issues: 1. June Avenue -- create a cul -de -sac, but allow the median to remain open. 2. Indiana Avenue intersection - -allow the median to be closed, create a cul -de -sac on Indiana, if it is possible to lessen the traffic impact on other streets. 3. Halifax - -as proposed. Review traffic impact, consider signals. 4. Grimes -- median closed, street to remain open. 5. France -- Consider signals there, pending the decision of the highway department. Continue to seek state funding for a controlled intersection there. 6. Ewing Avenue -- median closed, street to remain open. 7. Drew Avenue -- median open, street to remain open, with no restrictions on U Turns. S. Trail on north side - -have staff mitigate. Provide for adequate fencing, screening or berming in most efficient manner. 6/24/91 -8- 9. Trail location -- gentle curves within construction lines, at least 8 feet from road in the area of Palmer Drive and 10 feet for the remaining area. 10. Palmer Lake - -it was noted there was little latitude in the area due to wetland restrictions and federal requirements. The Council concurred with a marked crosswalk at Palmer Lake Drive. They referred traffic concerns to advisory committee. 11. Overall roadway - -as outlined in the proposal. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to draft a resolution incorporating Council consensus remarks to be considered at the July 8, 1991, Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The public informational hearing was informally closed at 10:25 p.m. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened at 10:32 p.m. PRESENTATION ANNUAL AUDITED FINANCLAL REPORT The Finance Director introduced Charlie Hansen, Assistant Finance Director, Clifford Hoffman and Barbara Diekmann, of the City's independent audit firm, Deloitte & Touche, who were present to review the 1990 audit. It was noted the audit firm had won numerous awards for excellence in financial reporting and anticipated high marks on the City's 1990 audit. Mr. Hoffman stated the firm worked for the City Council, not for City management. He thanked the City staff for their cooperation and unlimited access to information during the audit. Mr. Hoffman noted the City had a number of strengths in the area of financial planning. He felt strongly that communities should not pass costs of today's services to tomorrow's taxpayers, and reported the City had not done this. He indicated all of the City's investment risks were in Category 1, which was a favorable sign. Also, the net debt per capita was $15, which compared with a national average of $500. Bob Thistle, of Springsted, Inc. discussed the relationship between bond rating and interest rates and stated the City was in an enviable position in this. He noted the audit offered tips on good management practices. 6/24/91 - 9 - Ms. Diekmann summarized the report and noted the City had an excellent record of following the audit firm's advice. Two cases of bid law violations in 1989, for example, had not been repeated. Mr. Hoffman reported the City had good, consistent management. He cautioned the City to keep an eye on their enterprise funds, but felt the financial outlook overall was very good. The Council thanked the audit firm for their presentation and commended the finance department for their work. Councilmember Cohen commented the audit presented good information for the Budget Task Force. DISCUSSION ITEMS STATUS REPORT REGARDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COST ESTIMATE FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS As the 69th Avenue improvements had been previously discussed under item 8, during the public informational hearing on this project, the Director of Public Works did not further review the matter, but offered to answer any Council questions. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -160 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS AND FUND SOURCES FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -161 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 69TH AVENUE SOIL CORRECTIONS (CONSTRUCTION PHASE I, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, CONTRACT 1991 -I) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. 6/24/91 - 10- RESOLUTION NO. 91 -162 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON 69TH AVENUE BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF THE 1991 -2000 CAPTTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Director of Public Works stated several changes had been made to the program to incorporate the remarks of the Council during their preliminary review on June 10, 1991. Bob Thistle reviewed Part 11 of the Capital Improvements Program which included the Debt Planning Study. He indicated the City was at 2.91% of the debt capacity allowed by the State Legislature, and therefore was in a very stable position. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, he indicated certain overlapping debts could possibly have a negative impact on the City's bond rating. This could be affected by the County or the school district's bond rating, also. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -163 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1991 -2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF $3.0 MILLION BOND SALE RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 The Director of Public Works reported the proceeds of the bonds would be used to pay costs for the 69th Avenue Improvement Project. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question, he stated the $45,000 allowance for discount bidding was the maximum profit for the underwriter. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -164 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $3,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE AID ROAD BONDS, SERIES 1991B 6/24/91 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimous) J ry , . p Y STAFF REPORT REGARDING 57TH AVENUE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene tabling this item until the July 8, 1991, Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORT REGARDIN CONCEPT DESIGNS FOR TRAILWAY PAST HUMBOLDT SQUARE Tim Erkkila, of Westwood Professional Services, Inc., the City's landscaping consultant, presented seven design alternatives for consideration. Each alternative had some easement requirements. Of the seven designs, three had been identified by staff as being most desirable. These had been based upon effectiveness of the trail and aesthetics of the project and included alternates A -2, E and B. The Council discussed these designs, as well as A -l. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to present the alternatives discussed to residents of the area, receive input, gather information regarding Council's discussion of the alternatives, and report back to Council. The motion passed unanimously. STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REMODELING OF PARK SHELTER BUILDING AT TWIN LAKE BEACH There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene, tabling this item until the July 8, 1991, Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. REGIONAL MEETINGS FOR 1 992 METROPOLFFAN COUNCIL BUDGET This was presented as an informational item. No formal action was taken on this matter. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. 91 -165 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: I RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990- 03, CONTRACT 1991 -C (WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION IN THE VICINITY OF 69TH AVENUE AND DUPONT AVENUE AT WATER TOWER #2) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 6/24/91 - 12 - r ~ The City Manager noted item 11h, Supporting Concept of an MTC Opting -In Program and Offering Brooklyn Center as a Pilot -City had been inadvertently placed on the agenda and would not be considered at the meeting. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott, and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Deputy Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Ann J. Odden Northern Counties Secretarial Service 6/24/91 - 13 - 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 JUNE 27, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Ainas and Johnson had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 30, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 30, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90013 (Peter Houser) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary registered land survey approval to subdivide into two tracts the land occupied by Carson's and the Midas Muffler Shop and the parking area in between at Brookdale. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90013, attached). Commissioner Bernards stated that on page 1 the matter of Midas having no separate development rights is framed as a staff opinion whereas on the second page of the report it is stated pretty much as a fact. He wondered which is the case. The Secretary stated the way staff looked at development rights at Brookdale is that they are collectively held by all the owners together rather than by anyone separately. He noted that he considered this to be a fact, however, it certainly might be a debatable point of view. He added that staff have consulted briefly with the City Attorney on this subject. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there were no additional development rights created by the subdivision of the parcel. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that no additional rights to expand would be created for either Brookdale 6 -27 -91 1 as a collective entity or for any of the property owners separately. Commissioner Holmes asked whether that needed to be clarified. The Secretary stated that it is necessary to clarify that and that is being done through the staff report and through the deliberation by the Planning Commission of this matter. He stated that Brookdale as a whole is deficient in parking. He stated that there has been discussion of a possible expansion at Brookdale and that the possibility of a ramp has been discussed. He added that Brookdale would have the right to seek a variance from the parking requirement though he would not commit as to whether such a variance would be approved. Commissioner Holmes referred to a portion of the report in which it discusses a parking issue that may be resolved in the future. He asked what issue may be resolved. The Secretary answered that the staff's interpretation of the ordinance may be challenged or some other resolution may be found. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that a ramp could be built which would do away with the parking deficiency and that there could actually become an excess of parking in the future. Commissioner Holmes asked, if more parking were provided, could Midas add on more space or would they have to seek the approval of the Brookdale owners board. He pointed out that normally if one has land and parking to support building that the building is approved. The Secretary agreed that that is normally the case, but that at Brookdale, all development rights are considered to be collectively held because of the reciprocal operating agreement that covers all the parcels and allows cross access and cross parking. He stated that if Midas approached the City in the future and there was no parking deficiency that the staff would probably consider an expansion, but that the owners board should be aware of this and understand who is utilizing the developments with Brookdale. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Joe Cade, an attorney for Peter Houser, the owner of the Midas shop, stated that he did not have much to add to the staff report. He stated that his client has no intention of expanding the Midas shop at Brookdale. He said that although Midas would be taking more parking than necessary, this allows them some possibility in the future of doing something with the land, whether it be a building expansion or something else. He stated that he understood that his client understands that the rights to develop within Brookdale are limited by the agreements between the parcels and that this registered land survey would be subject to those agreements. He stated that he thought condition #3 was unnecessary. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a continued public hearing on Application No. 90013. She asked whether anyone present 6 -27 -91 2 0 wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Bernards to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it was necessary to retain condition number 3 in the staff report in light of the applicant's representative's comments. The Secretary stated that he would still recommend keeping the condition in the approval to clarify the issue. The Planner added that often times the conditions of approval are the most important part of the public record and that keeping that condition in the conditions of approval would make clear what the Planing Commission's assumptions were in acting on the application. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90013 (Peter Houser) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 90013, subject to the following conditions: 1. The f inal R. L. S. is subj ect to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. No separate development rights accrue to either parcel apart from the collective development rights of the Brookdale Shopping Center. The property owners are referred to the Brookdale owners association for settlement of the apportionment of development rights within the complex. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of some business items that had been held over and not considered yet by the City Council, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson 6 -27 -91 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90013 Applicant: Peter Houser Location: 1206 Brookdale (Midas) Request: Preliminary Registered Land Survey The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the parcel of land that presently includes the Carson's store at Brookdale, the Midas shop and a large parking area containing 953 parking stalls in the northwestern portion of Brookdale. The land in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east by parking lot area, on the southeast by Brookdale store areas and a leased area, on the southwest by parking area, and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North. Carson's is a permitted use and Midas a special use in the C2 zoning district. Tract A is proposed to be 1.22 acres, would include the Midas shop and 71 parking stalls. Tract B is proposed to be 10.78 acres and would include Carson's and 882 parking stalls. Midas is required to have approximately 26 parking stalls, though the applicant believes there is a need for about 45 stalls. This application was first considered by the Planning Commission at its May 10, 1990 meeting and was tabled at the request of the applicant. The major concern at that time was that the applicant intended to subdivide off more land and parking than was needed for the Midas Muffler shop, thereby taking on greater tax liability than necessary. This tax liability would seem to confer with it greater development rights for the Midas shop. It was and still is staff's opinion, however, that there are no separate development rights at Brookdale; rather that all parties are subject to the collective development rights of the center as a whole. As a whole, Brookdale is deficient in parking, if the central mall area is counted as retail space. The Zoning Ordinance requires parking based on gross floor area, for retail establishments, not leasable area. We have estimated that the gross floor area of Brookdale, exclusive of the outbuildings and purely exit corridors, is approximately 961,473 sq. ft. The parking requirement for this area is 5,288 spaces. The three auto service buildings have a separate parking requirement of 160 spaces based on service bays, employees, and service vehicles. This brings the total parking requirement for Brookdale to 5,448 spaces. (There are 23,093 sq. ft. of restaurants at Brookdale, far less than the 15% allowed without adding parking.) There are just over 5,000 parking spaces at Brookdale as a whole. The center is, therefore, deficient as a whole. 6 -27 -91 1 Application No. 90013 continued Because all land at Brookdale, though divided into six parcels, is subject to cross access and cross parking agreements, we consider this deficiency to apply to all parcels collectively. No individual parcel possesses development rights apart from the development rights of the center as a whole. We have expressed this determination numerous times to the applicant so that he is aware that no separate development rights result from the proposed subdivision, even though separate tax liability will result. He has indicated that he understands our position, that he has no immediate plans for an expansion, but would like to have extra land in case the parking issue is resolved in the future. We regard this as a business decision which may or may not turn out to be profitable. We do not believe at this point that the application must be denied as long as the City's position is clearly understood. Under watershed district regulations, subdivisions of commercial land over 5 acres in area are subject to watershed district regulations. The Shingle Creek Watershed District indicated last year that no drainage improvements would be required as long as no physical improvements to the property are planned or proposed. Recommendation Altogether, the proposed R.L.S. appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. No separate development rights accrue to either parcel apart from the collective development rights of the Brookdale Shopping Center. The property owners are referred to the Brookdale owners association for settlement of the apportionment of development rights within the complex. Submitted by, Gary Sha- 21cross Planner oved by, onald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 6 -27 -91 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 /8/97 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91008 - Welsh Companies, Inc. ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: 4010 00-400- 2 D f &J Ronal A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection *;** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ;G No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) Planning Commission Application No. 91008 submitted by Welsh Companies, Inc. is a request for sign variance approval for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. These signs are all 4' x 8' (32 sq. ft.) space for lease signs which exceed the limits allowed for real estate signs under Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2.1, 3 and 4. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 16, 1991 meeting at which time the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request on the grounds that the standards for a sign ordinance variance were not met. The Commission, however, recommended approval of an ordinance amendment which would modify the current sign regulations for space for lease signs. The current Sign Ordinance provisions relating to temporary real estate signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings contains a somewhat complex formula for determining the size of signs based on the size of a building wall and its distance from the public right -of -way. Enforcement of the provisions is difficult due to the nature of the regulations and the fact that no permits are required for these types of signs. Another problem experienced is that many would like to have freestanding for lease or sale signs, but the • ordinance limits such signs to walls. The recommended ordinance establishes 32 sq. ft. as the maximum size for these signs and allows either a wall sign or a freestanding sign per street frontage. We believe this to be a reasonable size and should be easier to enforce as well. SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED PAGE 2 Although not related to real estate signs, the proposed ordinance also addresses a sign problem we recently had, that being a truck used as an advertising sign parked in a parking lot along Brooklyn Boulevard. The language offered is based on language from a model sign ordinance and prohibits signs on commercial vehicles which are parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertising a business, product or service to the traveling public. Attached are copies of the minutes and information sheet from the May 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, ordinance amendment, ordinance sections, several letters, sign survey and a map of the area for the Council's review. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council deny Planning Commission Application No. 91008 (sign ordinance variance) on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance Variance are not met and approve the recommended ordinance amendment for first reading. • CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes noted the need for parking lot screening and asked whether there was a need to add a condition to the resolution. The Secretary explained that that was required as part of the plat approval and that there was no need to add a condition to the rezoning application. He added that the applicants will bring the plat back to the City Council for final approval. RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 4 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Mann and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson, and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. APPLICATION NO. 91008 (Welsh Companies, Inc.) l � The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for approval of sign variances for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91008, attached) . The Secretary explained that the lack of enforcement over the last few years has been a result of a number of factors including a change of personnel, the complexity of the existing ordinance, and the fact that no permit is required for real estate signs. The Secretary stated that a 32 sq. ft. sign is easy to identify and an ordinance limit of 32 sq. ft. would be fairly simple to enforce. The Secretary reviewed the draft ordinance amendment, including a provision relating to signs painted on commercial vehicles. He concluded by stating that staff do not recommend the variance application because the situation is not really unique and that the hardship being experienced by the applicant is not greater than that experienced by other people trying to lease space in their buildings. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the prohibition on using vehicles as signs would be applicable to garage sale signs that are tacked onto a vehicle. The Secretary stated that it would probably not be considered a violation if it was confined to the-property where the garage sale was being conducted. Commissioner Bernards asked about a case where a vehicle might be parked at a corner in 5 -16 -91 2 i order to advertise the garage sale. The Secretary stated that that 0 might indeed constitute a violation. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the permit fee that would apply to a 32 sq. ft. real estate sign if a permit were required. The Planner pointed out that the fee is $30.00 for the first 50 sq. ft. The Secretary stated that he did not have a problem going without a permit for real estate signs. He noted that real estate signs are supposed to be temporary signs and that permits are generally required only for permanent signs. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the use of trucks and banners for special sales. The Secretary explained that such signery can be allowed by administrative land use permit for a limited time. He explained the background of the ordinance regarding signs painted on commercial vehicles. He noted that there had been a truck parked at Westbrook Mall with a sign on it advertising a business and service within Westbrook Mall and that it was parked for long periods of time and really acted as a freestanding sign. He stated that this type of abuse was precisely what this ordinance was aimed at eliminating. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the real estate signs for the buildings across the street were noncomplying. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and stated that they had been sent letters regarding the violation. He explained that project identification signs sometimes get turned into space for lease signs after the project is built. Commissioner Bernards asked what period of time would be involved in the adoption of a new ordinance. The Secretary stated that it would take about 45 days to adopt a new ordinance, but stated that the old ordinance would not really be enforced as long as the ordinance amendment was being pursued. Commissioner Johnson asked how long it would take to prosecute a noncomplying sign. The Secretary stated that it would be pursued with a misdemeanor tag which must be responded to within seven days. He went on to review the prosecution process and stated that it might go as long as three or four months. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dick McGinley, of Welsh Companies, asked that the Commission both grant the variance and adopt an ordinance amendment. I Chairperson Malecki responded that staff had recommended that the variance be denied, but that the ordinance be amended. She asked the Commission how they felt regarding the request. Commissioner Ainas also stated that the variance should be denied, but that the ordinance should be amended. Other Commissioners generally agreed. Mr. Kent Warden, of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Minneapolis (B.O.M.A.) stated that he felt the ordinance amendment 5 -16 -91 3 was proper. He stressed that signs are an effective marketing tool and that it would make Brooklyn Center competitive with other locations along the interstate. Regarding B.O.M.A.'s recommendation for a smaller sign for smaller buildings, he stated that he did not really object to the staff recommendation for a larger sign standard. Commissioner Bernards noted that Mr. Warden had called signs an effective marketing tool. He asked how many leads come from such signs. Mr. McGinley responded that approximately 30% of the business that he gets for leasing space comes from such signs. He stated that for office showroom, office warehouse, and retail space, the user of that space will drive the area looking for space for lease. The Secretary also explained that the variance was submitted a couple of months ago and that the staff has met with representatives and developed a proposed ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 91008) 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 Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the ublic hearing. ng. The motion passed unanimously. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding a 1,000 sq. ft. break point for larger or smaller signs in the existing ordinance, the Secretary stated that he did not believe that a 32 sq. ft. sign was really a problem on a wall, even if it is less than 1,000 sq. ft. in area. Mr. Holmes asked what buildings would be affected by the new ordinance. The Secretary responded that commercial and industrial buildings would be affected and also multiple family buildings. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 91008 (Welsh Companies, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 91008, on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS AND PROHIBITING SIGNS PAINTED ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WHICH ARE IMPROPERLY PARKED. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances regarding the allowable size of space for lease signs and prohibiting certain signs painted on commercial vehicles and also noting that no permit should be required for a temporary real 5 -16 -91 4 estate sign. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then discussed with the Commission the proposal by Sunlite Properties for more parking space or a lesser buffer adjacent to the Berean Church. He stated that the church had expressed some interest in possibly selling some land to Sunlite properties, but that they want to know what the effect would be on the possible expansion of the church in the future. There followed more brief discussion of upcoming business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Chairperson 5 -16 -91 5 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91008 Applicant: Welsh Companies, Inc. Location: 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive Request: Sign variance The applicant requests sign variances for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. The signs are all 4' x 8' (32 sq. ft.) space for lease signs. Under the Sign Ordinance, buildings are allowed to have temporary wall signs advertising space for lease; the size of the allowable signs varies depending on the size of the wall and its distance from public right -of -way. Buildings entitled to a wall sign (or signs) may, as an alternative, utilize up to 10 sq. ft. of an existing freestanding identification signs to advertise space for lease (See Section 34- 140.2.1 3 and 4, attached) . In the cases being reviewed, the applicant has erected separate freestanding signs advertising space for lease which are not permitted by the ordinance. Applicant's Submittal The applicant, in the person of William Katter, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he states his case for a temporary variance of one year from the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. The letter asks that the three 4' x 8' signs be allowed to remain because these properties are in receivership and Welsh Companies has been charged with the responsibility of leasing as much space as possible over the next year. He states that a 2' x 5' sign would have poor visibility. Mr. Katter also argues that the variance should have no negative effects and in no way constitutes a detriment to the public welfare. He states that it is a means of attracting new business to the community. He adds that other properties in the City have this type of signery and do not conform to the ordinance. Mr. Katter concludes by noting the distressed nature of the overall real estate market and their particular situation as receiver for these properties, and asks that the City aid their efforts by softening the present sign restrictions and granting a variance. Collateral Submittals The applicant is correct in stating that there are numerous other freestanding space for lease signs in the City. The City's ordinance pertaining to these types of signs has not been rigorously enforced for some years. On approximately March 1, 1991, Building Inspector David Fisher sent out a compliance letter to owners of approximately 30 properties in the City. Some have called and /or written expressing why they feel they need this type of signery (see letters attached). We have also met with representatives of B.O.M.A. (Building Owners and Managers Association) of Minneapolis. They have also submitted a brief letter recommending an ordinance amendment to allow the option of a freestanding or wall sign per frontage up to 16 sq. ft. for walls less than 1,000 sq. ft. and up to 32 sq. ft. for walls over 1,000 sq. ft. 5 -16 -91 1 Application No. 91008 continued Staff Response The existing ordinance pertaining to space for lease signs dates to the early 1980's when the building at 5901 John Martin Drive sought a variance from what was then allowed (a 10 sq. ft. wall sign) . The ordinance that resulted from that application is fairly complex and is difficult to enforce in practice though it makes sense in theory. While we do not feel the present application meets the standards for a variance, we would recommend that the Commission consider an ordinance amendment that would simplify both enforcement and compliance and would be more in keeping with industry standards. In this vein, we would generally agree with the recommendation of B.O.M.A. We have surveyed other communities and found that provisions vary, but that the B.O.M.A. recommendations are within the range of what is normally allowed and tend to reflect what exists in the community. They are also simpler than the ordinance presently in place. Staff have also discussed whether a permit should be required for space for lease signs. At present, no permit is required. A permit requirement, if properly observed, would allow review of signs before they are erected and would thus ease enforcement. At present, violations must be caught after the fact. Generally, under the ordinance, a sign which requires a permit is a permanent sign. Space for lease signs should not become permanent lest they act as billboards, advertising a company which may wind up leasing space on some other property, perhaps even in another city. The Commission may wish to give direction on the permit question. We believe that a revised ordinance would mean less noncompliance in any case and enforcement should be easier even without a permit. A draft ordinance is attached for the Commission's review. Submitted by, C -7 Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by,'' Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5 -16 -91 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS 14. Signs painted on a commercial vehicle which is Parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertising a business, product or service to the traveling public and which is not making a pickup or delivery or being appropriately stored on the premises. Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3. Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units and temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to [walls facing public streets] one freestanding or wall sign Per street frontage. The size of signs shall be [determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right -of- way in the following manner:] no greater than 32 sq. ft. ORDINANCE NO. [a. For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 10 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 16 sq. ft. b. Buildings eligible for temporary real estate signs under Subsection (a) above shall be entitled to a sign 50% greater in area if the building is over 100 feet from the right -of -way line and 100% greater if the building is over 300 feet from the right -of -way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as specified in Subsection 34 -140- :2.1 (3) above may utilize up to 10 sq. ft. or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs.] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 34 -160 2. The fee for a sign hanger's license shall be as set forth by City Council resolution, and the license shall run from May 1 to April 30 of the following year. 3. No license shall take effect until the licensee shall file with the City Clerk a bond with corporate surety in form approved by the City Attorney in the penal sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000) conditioned that the licensee will pay all permit fees required under this ordinance, pay any fines imposed upon him for violation thereof, will conform to all provisions of this ordinance and will indemnify and hold the City, its officers and agents harmless from any damages or claim resulting from or related to the erection or maintenance of any sign in the City by the licensee. Section 34 -170 APPEALS. In order to secure relief where it is alleged that an administrative officer of the City has committed an error in interpretation of judgment in issuing an order or making a determination, any person may appeal said order or determination consistent with the provisions of Section 35 -251 of the City Ordinances. k' Section 34 -180. VARIANCES (ADJUSTMENTS). The procedure for obtaining a variance from the requirements of this ordinance shall be the same as set out in Section 35 -240 of the Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses thereof within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Section 34 -190 ENFORCEMENT. It shall be the responsibility of the City Manager to cause the requirements of this ordinance to be properly enforced and to administer the same. 34 -140 d. Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor, or owner when placed upon a respective worksite and not exceeding an aggregate of forty -eight (48) square feet in area, to be removed ten (10) days following completion of construction. e. Copy or message changing on a printed or painted sign which is permitted by this ordinance. f. Portable and freestanding political signs for a period of not more than sixty (60) days before and ten (10) days after an election provided no one sign is greater than sixteen (16) square feet in area, except that there shall be no limitation on the size of political or other noncommercial signs during the period from August 1 in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election. Freestanding political signs may be installed only upon private property with the permission of the property owner who shall be responsible for removal thereof. The candidate whose candidacy is promoted by an improperly placed or otherwise illegal political sign shall be held responsible therefor. g. Signs or posters painted on or attached to the inside of a display window. This shall include illuminated signs, but not flashing signs. h. Flags, badges, or insignia of any government or governmental agency, or of any civic, religious, fraternal or professional organization. Commercial and industrial establishments may display a single flag consisting of the official corporate seal or insignia as identification of the individual establishment. Advertising or promotion of specific products or services is prohibited unless approved in conjunction with an administrative permit as provided in Section 35 -800. i. Emergency signs required by other governmental agencies. j. Temporary displays which are erected to celebrate, commemorate, or observe a civil or religious holiday. k. Courtesy bench signs, provided they are installed and maintained by / a person, firm or corporation licensed by the City Council. +� 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 1. Temporary freestanding or wall signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or entire buildings provided that such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area for residential property and thirty -two (32) square feet for other property and that there shall be only one such freestanding or wall sign permitted for each property. The sign must be removed within ten (10) days following the lease or sale. Temporary freestanding off -site real estate signs announcing an "open house" or similar activity for the ur ose of showing P P or displaying a home for sale are permitted provided: a. The off -site sign is located on g privately -owned residential property and there is no objection to the display of the sign on the part of that property owner; 34 -140 b. The off -site sign is displayed only during the time of the "open house" or showing; C. The size of the off -site sign shall not exceed three (3) square feet in area. 2. A temporary freestanding sign for the purpose of announcing or promoting a new residential, commercial or industrial project development, provided that each residential project contains at least six (6) dwellings or lots. Further provisions are that one such sign is permitted for each major thoroughfare the project abuts; the signs shall be located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any pre- existing home; the signs are removed within two (2) years of issuance of the first building permit in the project or when the particular project is ninety (90) percent sold out or rented, whichever is sooner; and each sign shall not exceed the following size limitations: Project area under 10 acres - 48 square feet Project area over 10 acres - 320 square feet 3. Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units and temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to walls facing public streets. The size of signs shall be determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right -of -way in the following manner: a. For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 10 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 16 sq. ft. b. Buildings eligible for temporary real estate wall signs under Subsection (a) above shall be entitled to a sign 50% greater in area if the building is over 100 feet from the right -of -way line and 100% greater if the building is over 300 feet from the right -of -way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as specified in Subsection 34 -140:2 1 (3) above may utilize up to 10 sq. ft. or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs. M. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area, identifying the location of and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, stringers or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on the property where the sale is being conducted. The sign and other devices may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. `Nelsh Companies. Inc. o P!ne Tree Dri.e. Suite 380 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 'A�IshCompames 612- 484 -433 March 5, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross City Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Shallcross: We are writing you in response to the notice we received regarding our violation of Brooklyn Center's Sign Ordinance. We ask that you kindly consider the following circumstances as grounds for permitting a temporary variance from the City's Ordinance. Due to the 30 day compliance rule, we ask that this matter is reviewed before April 1, 1991, in order for us to take any necessary action to prevent possible enforcement of this Ordinance. Welsh Companies, Inc, has been appointed b the U.S. District Court as Receiver f PP Y e or the property located at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and the property located at 2700 Freeway Boulevard. As you may be aware, the need for a Receivership is created by distressed properties; present occupancy levels for these two properties are 83 % and 72 %, respectively. As Receiver for the Court, we have been instructed to alleviate this situation to the best of our ability. It is our belief that our duties as Receiver are greatly impaired by the restrictive Sign Ordinance currently in place. The present City Sign Ordinance does not provide us with the ability to effectively communicate the change in the marketing entity for the property, and would interfere greatly with the marketability of the properties, and therefore, hamper our ability to carry out our duties as Receiver. The visibility of a 2'x 5' (10 square feet) sign is extremely poor, as opposed to the current. x 8' sign, which has consistently provided us with a number of new tenants we place into properties we manage. The variance we are requesting would be a temporary variance, lasting for a one year period, which is the equivalent of the properties' Redemption period under current Real Estate laws. The signs we propose to utilize would be freestanding in nature, and approximately 48 square feet in total surface area, or,'x 8' in dimension. We would utilize only one (1) sign on each property, and would be more than happy to conform to setback regulations. The proposed variance should not have any negative effects to the City, and in no way constitutes a detriment to the public welfare. To the contrary, the signs are a viable means of communicating vailable space and attracting g P g business into the City, providing employment opportunities and numerous other benefits to the community as a whole. In addition, we have found that a great number of properties within the City display signage Real Estate Development • Construction • Brokerage • Property Management • Investment Services Page Two Gary Shallcross March 5, 1991 that does not conform to the present Ordinance. It was on this presumption that we placed ,/- x 8' signs on these properties; replacing the signs with a 2' x 5' sign would be very detrimental and costly to our marketing efforts. Given the distressed nature of the overall real estate market, and our particular situation as Receiver for these properties, we ask that the City of Brooklyn Center aid our efforts by softening the present sign restriction, and granting a variance as described above. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you personally to further discuss our application. Sincerely, William P. Katter Property Manager WPK:jl vVelsh Companies, Inc. 6 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 380 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 �hCompmes 612- 484 -4334 March 11, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross City Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn n en y Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Shallcross: We are writing you in response to the notice we received regarding our violation of Brooklyn Center's Sign Ordinance. We ask that you kindly consider the following circumstances as grounds for permitting a temporary variance from the City's Ordinance. Due to the 30 day compliance rule, we ask that this matter is reviewed before April 1, 1991, in order for us to take any necessary action to prevent possible enforcement of this Ordinance. Welsh Companies, Inc. has been appointed by the U.S. District Court as Receiver for the property located at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and the property located at 2700 Freeway Boulevard. As you may be aware, the need for a Receivership is created by distressed properties; present occupancy levels for these two properties are 83 % and 72 %, respectively. As Receiver for the Court, we have been instructed to alleviate this situation to the best of our ability. It is our belief that our duties as Receiver are greatly impaired by the restrictive Sign Ordinance currently in place. The present City Sign Ordinance does not provide us with the ability to effectively communicate the change in the marketing entity for the property, and would interfere greatly with the marketability of the properties, and therefore, hamper our ability to carry out our duties as Receiver. The visibility of a 2'x 5' (10 square feet) sign is extremely poor, as opposed to the current -& x 8' sign, which has consistently provided us with a number of new tenants we place into properties we manage. The variance we are requesting would be a temporary variance, lasting for a one year period, which is the equivalent of the properties' Redemption period under current Real Estate laws. The signs we propose to utilize would be freestanding in nature, and approximately 48 square feet in total surface area, orf;x 8' in dimension. We would utilize only one (1) sign on each property, and would be more than happy to conform to setback regulations. The proposed variance should not have any negative effects to the City, and in no way constitutes a detriment to the public welfare. To the contrary, the signs are a viable means of communicating available space and attracting new business into the City, providing employment opportunities and numerous other benefits to the community as a whole. In addition, we have found that a great number of properties within the City display signage Real Es'ate Development • Construction • Brokerage • Property Management • Investment Services Page Two Gary Shallcross March 11, 1991 that does not conform to the present Ordinance. It was on this presumption that we placed x 8' signs on these properties; replacing the signs with a 2' x 5' sign would be very detrimental and costly to our marketing efforts. Given the distressed nature of the overall real estate market, and our particular situation as Receiver for these properties, we ask that the City of Brooklyn Center aid our efforts by softening the present sign restriction, and granting a variance as described above. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you personally to further discuss our application. Sincerely, 1 Kevin A. Connolly Property Manager KAC JI i �� • • • Q 1 BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF MI NNEAPOLIS BOMA rji IN�E(�idATk -JAL ' 121 SO. 8th STREET, #610, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -2841 \\ TELEPHONE: 612/338 -8627 FAX 612/340 -9744 May 2, 1991 OFFICERS 1990.91 JOHN P. KELLY. JR., RPA3 Mr. RDn W arren President Director of Planning and Inspections THOMAS J. PARISH City of Brooklyn Center Vice President CLIFFORD HABECK. RPAT 63 Shingle Creek Parkway Secretaryl Treasurer Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 KENT 0. 'WARDEN, RPAs rrecutive Director Dear Mr. Warren: DIRECTORS DENNIS DIESSNER M arks again for the opportunity to meet with you and your staff DEAN FREEMAN to dl$ouss Cow by our nxmlDers about application of your SETSY GEORGE, RPAs sign ordinance � nance to leas signs. As we Stated k Lu11 lQ.t1 gj]�'j' 1 �.r111r't CLIFFORD HABECK, RPA' JAMES JACHYMOWSKI cond s ition are Very Soft at this time and We are Concerned that DOUGLAS JOHNSON pies located in Brooklyn Center not be placed at a Aft P. KELLY. JR., RPA= C0I petltive disadvantage relative to neighboring communities by OMAS J. PARISH TEPHEN J. SONTAG a more restrictive regulation of leasing signs. Ex- Officio JOHN C. MOEN, RPAs The main concern wi the current ordira yce is the requirement that such leasing signs be fixed to the walls facing public streets, while the standard in the market generally provides for more visible free standing signs. We recd mend the provision be changed to permit either wall mounted or free standing signs. As far as regulation of the maximum size for such signs, we would recommend for buildings with wall area of 1,000 square feet or less that the maximum size be 16 square feet, and for wren ii th 1 ll(1 E—: bE:il.d �,.� t. y � o<. e.� r , „ n �.j.,.re feet of wall area, the ::mmmi_7mmn size be 32 square feet. Due to relaxation of size and positioning restrictions, no premium would need to be granted for distance from the right of way line. We believe this proposal would simplify administration on the ,part of the City and would closely conform to current actual practice. We will follow up shortly to see how you would like us to proceed, or don't hesitate to call if you have questions or cannnents . Yours truly Kent D. Warden, RPA Executive Director KDW:da 34 -140 b. The off -site sign is displayed only during the time of the "open house" or showing; c. The size of the off -site sign shall not exceed three (3) square feet in area. 2. A temporary freestanding sign for the purpose of announcing or promoting a new residential, commercial or industrial project development, provided that each residential project contains at least six (6) dwellings or lots. Further provisions are that one such sign is permitted for each major thoroughfare the project abuts; the signs shall be located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any pre - existing home; the signs are removed within two (2) years of issuance of the first building permit in the project or when the particular project is ninety (90) percent .sole out or rented, whichever is sooner; and each sign shall not exceed the following size limitations: Project area under 10 acres - 48 square feet Project area over � 10 acres 320 square feet — S7�G�tc4 � ' 3. Temporary gns for the purpose of leasing / or selling dwelling units buildings containing two (2) or more units and tempor ry signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of mmercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or ind' idual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and axon to walls facing public streets. The size of signs shall be determined on the basis of wall area and diGtann frnm r in the following manner: For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 1$ � sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be I.6-� sq. ft. b. s eligible for temporary ate wall signs under Subsectio ve be entitled to a sign 50% greater in area building 00 feet from the right -of- ine and 100% greater if the buil ing r 300 et from the right -o£ -way line. /6 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as pecified in Subsection 34 -140:2 1 (3) above may utilize up to ), q. ft, or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs. m. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area, identifying the location of and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers,_ balloons, stringers or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on the property where the sale is being conducted. The sign and other devices may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. i k BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF M INN EAP BOMA �ATO�AL 414 105 SO- 5th STREET, #927, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -1259 - TELEPHONE: 612/338 -6627 FAX 612/340-9744 OFFICERS 1990 -91 JOHN P. KELLY, JR., RPAI President THOMAS J. PARISH March 21, 1991 Vice President CLIFFORD HABECK. RPA' Secretary /Treasurer KENT D. WARDEN, RPA Executive Director Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning and Inspections DIRECTORS City of Brooklyn Center DENNIS DIESSNER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkwa DEAN FREEMAN Bro g , y BETSY GEORGE, RPAz yn Center MN 554 3 0 CLIFFORD HABECK, RPAE JAMES JACHYMOWSKI Dear Ron DOUGLAS JOHNSON P. KELLY, JR., RPAa 10MASJ.PARISH Thanks for the courtesy that you and your staff extended us STEPHEN J.SONTAG o Monday to discuss Brooklyn Center's Sign Ordinance Ex- Officio JOHN C.MOEN,RPAI relative to leasing signs. As discussed, we will get back to you within the next couple of weeks with suggestions of changes we would like to request be considered in that ordinance. In the meantime, if you have additional thoughts or questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Again, thanks for taking the time to review this matter. Yours tr-ul Kent D. Warden, RPA Executive Director cc: Dick McGinley, Chair, Suburban Issues Committee John P. Kelly, Jr., President, Minneapolis`BOMA .A DEVELOPMENT • LEASING • MANAGEMENT March 20, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross, Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: BOULEVARD SHOPPING CENTER 63RD AVE. NORTH & BROOKLYN BLVD. Dear Mr. Shallcross: This letter is in reference to the notice regarding the temporary leasing sign we installed at the above referenced shopping center. We were surprised to receive a notice from the City of Brooklyn Center indicating that our leasing sign was not in compliance with the City's requirements since we had contacted the City to verify our intentions prior to installing the sign. The leasing sign, which is located in the boulevard of the shopping center, is 4' x 8' which is the standard size used by Kraus - Anderson Realty Company in its 36 different retail locations. The size and location of the leasing sign is very important to effectively market the leasable premises. By increasing the visibility of the sign we are increasing our chances of re- leasing the premises at an earlier date, which in effect allows us to remove the sign at an earlier date. By only allowing a 10 square foot sign to be placed on the building the readability and effectiveness will be reduced substantially. We feel that the City of Brooklyn Center should re- evaluate their sign ordinance and change the current sign criteria to allow for legible leasing signs to be temporarily placed on retail property until the vacancy if filled. If you have any questions, please contact myself or Kevin Fossum, the Property Manager. Sincerely, &Ab /l G< �M� Barbara Smestad Tenant Improvement Coordinator -2:1 Soniii l.:i-hth sirc('t • Jlijjjw limlis. Miwwswa 1 -IU7$ • ((il2) :):;_'-1211 II March 19, 1991 High Mr. Gary Shallcross �p CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Y� 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway C( NNIFRCIAL. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 1XI W TRILL LAND - Ifi�h View Investments Inc. 8525 I:dinbmok Cmsiiu� I` ( ISmuklv{2' a ;4t Pear Mr. Shallcross, Re: Sign on 7022 -7068 Brooklyn Blvd. j In response to your letter of February 28, 1991, I would like to I inform the City of my intention to take the sign down that I now have at that address. My sign is a for sale sign from HIGH VIEW INVESTMENTS, INC. I am marketing three condominiums in that development. A sign is by far the best advertising and we had hoped to keep it on the front lawn. Per your City ordinance, it appears that the only approved sign would be a wall sign. This group of buildings is of a brick exterior and a glass enclosure on the front which prohibits that kind of a sign. Also, it would be difficult to market any one of the condominiums with that type of a sign because of the logistics of it, as most of them are internal, with very little wall space. I would appreciate some clarifying by your office at some time in reference to my sign. As I understand, Mr. Fisher said the City is looking at this particular portion of the sign ordinance now. In addition, the sign is still frozen into the ground and I cannot remove it. I - As I understand it, the sign fits the size criteria as it is only 2' by 3' and only one side of the sign is used. Be aware that I I would like to hear from you about this, but if I do not hear from You, I will remove it as soon as the weather permits. Sinc rely, Sharon Schmidt HIGH VIEW INVESTMENTS, INC. I rt CSM Corporation 2561 Territorial Road • St. Paul, MN 55114 -1500. 6121646 -1717 • FAX 6121646 -2404 March 15, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Brooklyn Crossing Office Park - 3300 County Road 10 Dear Mr. Shallcross: This letter is in response to the February 28, 1991 notice that we received from David Fisher regarding the leasing signs that we are currently maintaining at our Brooklyn Crossing project. While we acknowledge the need to minimize the visual clutter within the City's commercial district, we feel that the current ordinance is overly restrictive when compared to the standards imposed by other communities within the Minneapolis /St. Paul area. Most suburbs in which we own property allow a 4'x 8' free standing sign located within the setback on each major thoroughfare. The City's more restrictive ordinance which is now being enforced places commercial property owners at a disadvantage in competing for scarce tenants with neighboring communities since it is not as easy for prospective renters to identify and contact leasing personnel. We would respectably request that the City review its sign ordinance at its earliest convenience. In reference to your request that non - complying signaae be removed within thirty days,. we plan to remove all free standing leasing signs except for one 4 8' sign on the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage pending a final resolution of this issue. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Very truly, David Garland Property Manager ^ f R fly, cc: David Fisher, Building Inspector a t r L : ry en Pal rS March 12, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Lease Signage Brookdale Square Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Gary: This s letter is to clarify that o ' _ our leasino o- g si is vitally important to our 0 business and health of our shopping center. We get a number of calls off the signs as our competitors do. We have similar signs in Eden Prairie, Maplewood and Burnsville. The signs which we have placed on the property are professionally manufactured and tasteful. The signs cost us approximately $700 -$850 each to manufacture and place on the property. We would like the opportunity to discuss this matter further as I am sure other property owners in Brooklyn Center will. We would also seek a variance if that is necessary to keep our leasing signs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, a)tC W. Christoph r Galle Vice President WCG : k,j g 730 Second Avenue South - Suite 281 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 371 -0424 Fax: 612 - 371 -0634 CITY REAL ESTATE SIGNS (FOR LEASE) Bloomington Will fax Brooklyn Park 20 sq. ft. freestanding sign of commercial 6' ht. No permit required. Coon Rapids Will mail Eden Prairie 32 sq. ft. freestanding sign for leasing. Also allow 32 sq. ft. sign to announce a project (to be removed when 80% leased). No permit required. Edina Sign must be removed once 80% occupied. Mainly allowed for new construction. Signs can't exceed 100 sq. ft., one per street frontage. No closer than 100' to pre- existing res. No permit required. Fridley One sign per street frontage 50 sq. ft. total signery. No closer than 100' to building. Removed when leased. Minimum distance of 10 from property line or driveway. No permit. Maple Grove 4 sq. ft in res. in one and two family district, 32 sq. ft. in multiple family, commercial and industrial districts. Heavy industrial = 50 sq. ft. Minnetonka (Temporary signs) Allow on permanent basis as part of freestanding identification sign. Separate freestanding sign 12 sq. ft., 16 sq. ft. or 18 sq. ft. depending on size of building. Along 55 mph road, may have 32 sq. ft. sign. Permit required. Plymouth Project sign for 3 yrs. 96 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. in res. districts. Banners prohibited. Allow 96 sq. ft. sign for commercial /industrial for lease signs. Require permit for signs over 8 sq. ft. St. Louis Park 6 sq. ft. in R1, in R2 if under 15,000 sq. ft. of land, 6 sq. ft. In multiple family, commercial, and industrial 80 sq. ft., require permit. 25 ht. limit in all districts for freestanding. Allow on wall, but not roof. If above 6th floor, allow 200 sq. ft. Burnsville Leasing banners allowed on temporary basis. Maximum size sign is 40 sq. ft., 64 sq. ft. if no higher than 12' and setback 1' for each 1' of ht. Permit is $45 for 3 months for banners. d v ♦ � �sQi �s � s s . mm "PLICATION NO. ? Sri Mm 9,1 008 y " � � CREEK Ca OF all Te-ol"ll ASIA; a 1111i�jj� y���e ■ ■nom - ``� _ ��'�"� • X1111 �♦i ��� � IW�u♦icu�l �"''�� • u�. • �i ♦ ♦i� �nu�r � -. _ o • s ass ss •mss � �!.� ss ss �� ss �i � ss ss �� �s ss Ss f im ms rd a . ss mm r•8 y' ss ss ss a �s ss Qit ss W. .s isa� s . ss ss N ♦ y mm mm mm � , sa sa ss ss MM ass; • • � _ � sib m om"� r s ss 11 � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Number 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90013 - Peter Houser DEPT. APPROVAL: e CA 0 1AJao4o%&—%.,./ Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) Planning Commission Application No. 90013 submitted by Peter Houser is a request for preliminary registered land survey approval to subdivide into two tracts the land occupied by Carson's and the Midas Muffler shop and the parking in between at Brookdale. This application was considered by the Planning Commission on May 10, 1990 at which time the applicant requested that the application be tabled and continue the public hearing until another time. The application was again considered at the June 27, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Attached are copies of the minutes and information sheets from the May 10, 1990 and June 27, 1991 Planning Commission meetings, map of the area, a survey of retail parking requirements for major malls and a site plan of the area for the Council's review. Recommendation Approval of the application was recommended by the Planning Commission at its June 27, 1991 meeting subject to the three conditions listed on page 3 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 JUNE 27, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Ainas and Johnson had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 30 1991 Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 30, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90013 (Peter Houser I Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary registered land survey approval to subdivide into two tracts the land occupied by Carson's and the Midas Muffler Shop and the parking area in between at Brookdale. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90013, attached). Commissioner Bernards stated that on P g a e 1 the matter of Midas having no separate development rights is framed as a staff opinion whereas on the second page of the report it is stated pretty much as a fact. He wondered which is the case. The Secretary stated the way staff looked at development rights at Brookdale is that they are collectively held by all the owners together rather than by anyone separately. He noted that he considered this to be a fact, however, it certainly might be a debatable point of view. He added that staff have consulted briefly with the City Attorney on this subject. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there were no additional development rights created by the subdivision of the parcel. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that no additional rights to expand would be created for either Brookdale 6 -27 -91 1 as a collective entity or for any of the property owners separately. Commissioner Holmes asked whether that needed to be clarified. The Secretary stated that it is necessary to clarify that and that is being done through the staff report and through the deliberation by the Planning Commission of this matter. He stated that Brookdale as a whole is deficient in parking. He stated that there has been discussion of a possible expansion at Brookdale and that the possibility of a ramp has been discussed. He added that Brookdale would have the right to seek a variance from the parking requirement though he would not commit as to whether such a variance would be approved. Commissioner Holmes referred to a portion of the report in which it discusses a parking issue that may be resolved in the future. He asked what issue may be resolved. The Secretary answered that the staff's interpretation of the ordinance may be challenged or some other resolution may be found. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that a ramp could be built which would do away with the parking deficiency and that there could actually become an excess of parking in the future. Commissioner Holmes asked, if more parking were provided, could Midas add on more space or would they have to seek the approval of the Brookdale owners board. He pointed out that normally if one has land and parking to support building that the building is approved. The Secretary agreed that that is normally the case, but that at Brookdale, all development rights are considered to be collectively held because of the reciprocal operating agreement that covers all the parcels and allows cross access and cross parking. He stated that if Midas approached the City in the future and there was no parking deficiency that the staff would probably consider an expansion, but that the owners board should be aware of this and understand who is utilizing the developments with Brookdale. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Joe Cade, an attorney for Peter Houser, the owner of the Midas shop, stated that he did not have much to add to the staff report. He stated that his client has no intention of expanding the Midas shop at Brookdale. He said that although Midas would be taking more parking than necessary, this allows them some possibility in the future of doing something with the land, whether it be a building expansion or something else. He stated that he understood that his client understands that the rights to develop within Brookdale are limited by the agreements between the parcels and that this registered land survey would be subject to those agreements. He stated that he thought condition #3 was unnecessary. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a continued public hearing on Application No. 90013. She asked whether anyone present 6 -27 -91 2 wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Bernards to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it was necessary to retain condition number 3 in the staff report in light of the applicant's representative's comments. The Secretary stated that he would still recommend keeping the condition in the approval to clarify the issue. The Planner added that often times the conditions of approval are the most important part of the public record and that keeping that condition in the conditions of approval would make clear what the Planing Commission's assumptions were in acting on the application. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90013 (Peter Houser) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 90013, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. No separate development rights P p accrue to either parcel apart from the collective development rights of the Brookdale Shopping Center. The property owners are referred to the Brookdale owners association for settlement of the apportionment of development rights within the complex. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of some business items that had been held over and not considered yet by the City Council, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson 6 -27 -91 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90013 Applicant: Peter Houser Location: 1206 Brookdale (Midas) Request: Preliminary Registered Land Survey The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the parcel of land that presently includes the Carson's store at Brookdale, the Midas shop and a large parking area containing 953 parking stalls in the northwestern portion of Brookdale. The land in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east by parking lot area, on the southeast by Brookdale store areas and a leased area, on the southwest by parking area, and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North. Carson's is a permitted use and Midas a special use in the C2 zoning district. Tract A is proposed to be 1.22 acres, would include the Midas shop and 71 parking stalls. Tract B is proposed to be 10.78 acres and would include Carson's and 882 parking stalls. Midas is required to have approximately 26 parking stalls, though the applicant believes there is a need for about 45 stalls. This application was first considered by the Planning Commission at its May 10, 1990 meeting and was tabled at the request of the applicant. The major concern at that time was that the applicant intended to subdivide off more land and parking than was needed for the Midas Muffler shop, thereby taking on greater tax liability than necessary. This tax liability would seem to confer with it greater development rights for the Midas shop. It was and still is staff's opinion, however, that there are no separate development rights at Brookdale; rather that all parties are subject to the collective development rights of the center as a whole. As a whole, Brookdale is deficient in parking, if the central mall area is counted as retail space. The Zoning Ordinance requires parking based on gross floor area, for retail establishments, not leasable area. We have estimated that the gross floor area of Brookdale, exclusive of the outbuildings and purely exit corridors, is approximately 961,473 sq. ft. The parking requirement for this area is 5,288 spaces. The three auto service buildings have a separate parking requirement of 160 spaces based on service bays, employees, and service vehicles. This brings the total parking requirement for Brookdale to 5,448 spaces. (There are 23,093 sq. ft. of restaurants at Brookdale, far less than the 15% allowed without adding parking.) There are just over 5,000 parking spaces at Brookdale as a whole. The center is, therefore, deficient as a whole. 6 -27 -91 1 Application No. 90013 continued Because all land at Brookdale, though divided into six parcels, is subject to cross access and cross parking agreements, we consider this deficiency to apply to all parcels collectively. No individual parcel possesses development rights apart from the development rights of the center as a whole. We have expressed this determination numerous times to the applicant so that he is aware that no separate development rights result from the proposed subdivision even though separate tax liability will result. He has indicated that he understands our position, that he has no immediate plans for an expansion, but would like to have extra land in case the parking issue is resolved in the future. We regard this as a business decision which may or may not turn out to be profitable. We do not believe at this point that the application must be denied as long as the City's position is clearly understood. Under watershed district regulations, subdivisions of commercial land over 5 acres in area are subject to watershed district regulations. The Shingle Creek Watershed District indicated last year that no drainage improvements would be required as long as no physical improvements to the property are planned or proposed. Recommendation Altogether, the proposed R.L.S. appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. No separate development rights accrue to either parcel apart from the collective development rights of the Brookdale Shopping Center. The property owners are referred to the Brookdale owners association for settlement of the apportionment of development rights within the complex. Submitted by, c Gary Shallcross Planner t oved by, C 4 • t�.1 onald A. Warren 0 Director of Planning and Inspection 6 -27 -91 2 Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson and Mann. Voting against: Commissioner Holmes. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards asked when the new store was likely to be built. Mr. Bergerud answered that they hoped to start demolition two to three weeks after the City Council's approval. Commissioner Holmes asked what was the problem with restaurants, that they cannot seem to make it in that building. The Secretary responded that he was not sure that the Green Mill had financial problems. He stated that Green Mill was going to sell the franchise to the employees, but that apparently the employees could not come up with the money. There followed further brief discussion regarding the Walgreens development. / APPLICATION NO. 90013 (Peter Houser) Chairman Pro tem Ainas introduced the next item of business and noted that the applicant had requested tabling until a new drawing could be submitted. The Secretary stated that he did not think it was necessary to read through the report in light of the fact that much of the information is now obsolete and in light of the fact that the applicant is not present. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90013) Chairman Pro tem Ainas then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 90013 and noted that there was no one present to speak regarding the application. He called for a motion to table the application and continue the public hearing to a future meeting. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 90013 (Peter Houser) AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to table Application No. 90013 and continue the public hearing at the applicant's request. Commissioner Johnson asked why it was necessary to continue the public hearing. Chairman Pro tem Ainas stated that it was a matter of courtesy to anyone who might want to comment on the proposed R.L.S. when it is revised. The Secretary pointed out that there would be a change in the preliminary R.L.S. and that it was appropriate to allow for comment on that revised plan rather than close the hearing now when the plan is basically obsolete. There followed a brief discussion regarding the public hearing. Voting in favor of the motion to table Application No. 90013 and continue the public hearing: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 5 -10 -90 4 The Secretary explained a little bit of the background of the application which had just been tabled. He explained that Carson's was willing to sell any amount of land to Midas Muffler for the same price. It, therefore, seemed logical to Mr. Houser to buy as much land for the same price as possible. He pointed out, however, that no additional development rights would accrue with the additional land since all parking at Brookdale is used jointly and the development rights of the entire complex are considered at the same time. He also added that Midas would have to pay taxes on the additional land and would not be able to build any additional building to help defray the cost of those taxes. He stated that, given these realities, Mr. Houser decided to redraw the property line so that he did not have excess parking. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90013 Applicant: Pete Houser /Midas Muffler Location: Carson's at 1200 Brookdale and Midas building at 1206 Brookdale Request: Preliminary R.L.S. The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the parcel of land which presently contains the Carson's building, the Midas Muffler building, and a substantial portion of the parking lot at Brookdale. The land in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east by portions of the Brookdale parking lot, on the southeast by the Brookdale Mall (including a portion leased to Carson's) on the southwest by portions of the Brookdale parking lot, on the west by Xerxes Avenue North, and on the northwest by the Unocal service station at the intersection of Xerxes and County Road 10. The Carson's store is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district and the Midas Muffler shop is a special use. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to create a separate parcel for the Midas building so that they can own their own building. The Midas building was formerly the Donaldson's car care center and has been leased to Midas for some years now. The proposed R. L. S. creates two tracts: A (the Midas site) and B (the Carsons's site) . Tract A is 1.94 acres and contains the Midas building and 154 parking stalls. Tract B is 10.05 acres and contains the Carson's building and 799 parking stalls. The preliminary R.L.S. shows a 20' wide gas easement around the Carson's building. No other easements are shown on the R.L.S. Subdivision of commercial properties exceeding 5 acres normally require review and approval of a drainage plan by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. However, since the subdivision involves no improvements to the property, the Watershed Commission has waived the requirement for a drainage plan until such time as improvements are proposed. One key concern staff have regarding the proposed subdivision is parking on the respective sites. Under Section 35 -704 of the Zoning Ordinance, a repair garage with the characteristics of the Midas building would be required to have approximately 43 parking stalls. However, the Midas site as proposed would have 154 stalls. This would appear on the surface to give Midas the right to expand its building significantly in the future. However, there are presently cross access and cross parking agreements covering all the parcels at Brookdale and, historically, Brookdale has been looked at as a single entity for the purposes of evaluating parking requirements. Brookdale as a whole is deficient in parking by approximately 400 to 500 parking stalls. No expansions can be 0 allowed without providing additional parking. It is our opinion 5 -10 -90 -1- Application No. 90013 continued and we have conveyed it to the applicant, that the proposed subdivision of land creating the Midas parcel does not create any development rights for Midas which did not exist previously for Brookdale as a whole. Any addition to any building at Brookdale will require the construction of additional parking such that all parking requirements are collectively met at the center. Given this understanding, we do not object to the proposed subdivision, but have inquired of the applicant why he wishes to acquire the extra land, with all its attendant liabilities, when no separate development rights go with the parcel. He has indicated that the present owner of the land will charge him the same price whether he acquires no parking stalls, 43 parking stalls, or 154 parking stalls. The City Assessor has indicated the value of the land for property tax purposes will not be limited to the purchase price. We have conveyed this to the applicant. In light of this information, he has elected to reduce the size of the Midas parcel. A new R.L.S. drawing has not been submitted. Mr. Houser has, therefore, requested a tabling of the matter so that a new drawing can be submitted. We, therefore, recommend tabling of the matter until May 24, 1990. However, a public hearing has been called for this Thursday evening and should, therefore, be opened in case anyone is present to speak regarding the application. Attached is a copy of a letter we received on May 4, 1990 from Mr. Houser requesting the tabling of this matter so that the registered land survey can be revised. 5 -10 -90 -2- \ ,V • �• \ >.�':Z � ` : \ �` �` +�. � ' �_� , � ern � r� I 1� A – � ` � � 1_� _ _ tt I 11 _ ti - –�! �'�� ��: ' • • - --- 11 ._ —u. -' — BALI €_ _ _� - --__ A WN n GREAT VIEW —° — FRANCE AV N. QAI RAL (,� FS FRMI I i v N. y Y, �1 A AURAL PL. RAN CE �� I R` k`. \ EW -- NG AV� EWING AVE_ N. Z - z tT1 z r:_,< y i DRE'N AVE. n� DREW AVE N. _ `> • _ _ AVE. N > Y � ' F x�. •/<' DREW EwING y. < ) �X n Z HON 1NOOt ETO77 AVE. - C �� • Ix �\ _ AD TT AVE N. n a till IiH --- AVE J \� NAY _ ZENITPlAq t�Rs 1 � :N l k ' > N O Fi I EYORRKAqN. p O C? _ GNP NKIAOD ��. R V . W i \ _ _ _ _ -- - -- --- � „ `� �• � ��,� � � W N. _ - L-- _ z z viNClrt y Hid Q o p RV ICEN�T U A��. < r TOa VE. N. El x RUSSELL _AVE. N. l QUEEN AvE. N. I/ PENN AVE. RETAIL PARKING REQUIREMMENTS FOR MAJOR MALLS PARKING City_ Required Provided Blaine 1/200 sq. ft. of Gross Floor In conformance at this Area (use 80% of Gross Floor point. Area) add for restaurants + theatres. Bloomington 12 spaces /1,000 Gross Floor 12,750 spaces 4.4 spaces/ Area. Normally requires 6 1,000 sq. ft. of gross spaces /1,000 sq. ft. Gross leasable area if you count Camp Floor Area. Snoopy. 4.9 if you don't count Camp Snoopy. G.L.A. is about 700 of G.F.A. megamall. Burnsville For over 100,000 require What is provided is adequate. 5.5/1,000 sq.ft. of net floor Not sure what is actually area. Central mall area there. Use proof of parking a would be included. lot, Edina 1 space per 200 sq. ft. G.F.A. Actual is 5.21/1,000 sq. ft. including theatres + restaur- of net gross floor area. Mall, ants (add 1 space per 10 seats) elevator, mechanical, escalator Atrium + mall areas not used areas excluded. for retail purposes are excluded. Maplewood 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of Shopping center is a little Gross Leasable (G.L.A.). 1 bit over. Will have to add a space per 50 sq. ft. of patron ramp for addition. area. Minnetonka 5.5 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. of Not sure of actual numbers. gross area. Reduce for 5,917 parking spaces. interior areas. Require a 335,000 sq. ft. in mall parking study. 3.33,795 sq. ft. minor tenants 1,039,429 sq. ft.includes Firestone, Sears auto. Roseville 5/1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A. Rosedale exceeds. (however, except out certain Not a lot permanent kiosk. areas. - winds up being gross Presently have 1.14 million leasable area. sq. ft. 6,153 stalls. 5.39 per 1,000 sq. ft.. Appears to be adequate. O ) 0 - ! PROPOSED. REGISTERED, LANG- SURVEY • .•• .•� "n w.w / / ��- _ d'C7]51' R•1T6T1 M ` �� BSOe .,I✓ 1 NE9'b1o�C � • I .....�.�.Y ..w..... °a ' �Ilil/Illi ii /il. i.i ll %, 1 ' / .w ..... "-• /� � ' - `/, ] ` ` ` r�C�. i I � -7 II I l i1 j i y l �I.I�.�yy � `. i / i i 1 .. \ � . .i/ � ] . o4 pS E ��� / �( •�_ / /y / / d / / �_ -•. wscnrrwr or'. wcE� r.��w... w�.......... ._ y/ � p• � R. -� / /�,' � /� �� /,J —�-_ /' /! /' l / / / ' y y // _ � /// / /// - --=•�, 2 _o•` / ^�. , - � , `�-- /, / � /yam . \�` e" / / � f - . , H •`/ y / may_._ / / — 1__ � ,,L' ,.• \ ')+ " rG t 0 '�•.•� i dd• did \ � �� � 1�Y ✓ / / y n.��w.�~.....�•�` -rte CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE VACATING WATER MAIN EASEMENT IN TWIN VIEW MEADOWS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Directo f PublZ4orks MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:` No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • As per Document No. 4064501, dated August 14, 1973, the City of Brooklyn Center obtained a water main easement across a portion of Section 10, T.118N, R.21W., then owned by Tri -State Land Company. Recently, that property was purchased by Mr. Rick Hartmann and repoaated as TWIN VIEW MEADOWS. As part of the approved development of the subdivision, a portion of the previously installed water main was relocated to accommodate a new lot. The relocated water main is contained in an easement which was dedicated via the new plat. The remainder of the existing water main which lies within the boundaries of the new plat is contained in City- owned property (Outlots A & B) or dedicated public right -of -way (see attached Map). The City will retain the existing easement which lies within Outlot B, TWIN VIEW MEADOWS. Accordingly, Mr. Hartmann is now requesting the vacation of the portion of the existing water main easement (Doc. No. 4064501) which lies within the newly recorded plat of TWIN VIEW MEADOWS. The private utility companies providing service to the area have reviewed this request and no objections to the proposed vacation have been received. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION This ordinance was first read on June 10, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on June 19, 1991, and is offered this evening for a second reading. -� Merila & Associates, Inc. 8401 73rd Avenue North, Suite 63 Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55428 -1503 Telephone 1612) 533 -7595 Fax(612)533 -1937 March 21, 1991 Mr. Mark Maloney City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: TWIN VIEW MEADOWS Merila Project No. 90 -178 Enclosed is a copy of the watermain easement, Document 4064501. Field location of the existing 8 -inch watermain on March 18, 1991, determined that the watermain is not within the attached described easement. This will require relocation of the watermain and vacation of that portion of the easement contained within the Twin View Meadows subdivision (see attached boundary description). It is therefore requested that the city initiate the easement vacation process as soon as possible. The watermain will be relocated within the utility easement of Lot 13, Block 2 of Twin View Meadows. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. n C. Johnso . E. Vice President JCJ:mel cc: Rick Hartmann Dave Price ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING Portion of the plat "TWIN VIEW MEADOWS" OUTLOT B OUTLOT A i EASEMENT TO BE RETAINED - EASEMENT TO BE VACATED w I N (D I A l l _ _ _ N /•. Y, ______ ______________________-_______. _ 1 308.15 N00 °00 E -. rza A c� I 50.2 °� r WATER MAIN EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 4064501 w N01 52'36"E 160 41 N W 4l O I w � � •T. � I, I N01 _. __ m I Wzl ° 52 36 "E _ _ _ _ mol . .________._ _ of _ _ 145.00 ' 155.97 ____.__._; I I NI O 10 OI OI I 1 I O ' I I 45 / I //� I I (D N01 ° 5236 "E "E a. o. 145.00.__.____.__.__._i I I I I I A_U i I I O cn I m i �, 1 0 - 7 o q 'Oo 69 I w 1 I c 3�Sq. I N01 ° 52 36 "E -�' I N01 ° 52'3G "E _ 35 25 - 1r4 _.`._ -_ _._._145.00- ---------- --I �', y ♦ I I r- I p I � I n C �� r" I ' N01 ° 523fi'E 45 j I N01 0_52'36,E �----__. .._-- _-----.. 06-04-91 i I MJM lDa� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating A Water Main Easement in TWIN VIEW MEADOWS. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3350 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A WATER MAIN EASEMENT IN TWIN VIEW MEADOWS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the portion of the water main easement obtained by the City via Doc. No. 4064501, described as: A_strip of land 15 feet in width being 7.5 feet one each side of the following described center line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the N %, of Government Lot 2 in Section 10 Township 118 North, Range 21 West, thence West along the North line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 1000.9 feet more or less to a point in the Southeasterly line of Lake Drive extended Southwesterly, which point is the actual point of beginning of the line to be described: thence deflecting to the left 89° 33' 00" for a distance of 667.3 feet more or less to a point on the South line of said N; of Government Lot 2• thence deflecting to the right 28 30' 00" to a point in a line running_ parallel with and 50 feet distant Northeasterly (measured at right angles) from the center line of the main track of the Soo Line Railroad Company's railroad as the same is now located, maintained and operated over and across said Government Lot 2 and there terminating; which lies within the areas depicted as Lot 13 Block 2 Outlot A and 51st Avenue North on recorded plat of TWIN VIEW MEADOWS is hereby vacated Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , Mayor, Todd Paulson ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 -8 -91 Agenda Item Number f (2 b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES DEPT. APPROVAL: A03 Geral R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAEUENDATION: z No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • SU BLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) This item was first considered by the city council on May 13, 1991, and was tabled until the June 10, 1991, city council meeting. The council passed the ordinance for a first reading at the June meeting after hearing comments from Mr. Paul Durand, associate principal at Brooklyn Center High School. The ordinance is offered for a second reading on July 8, 1991. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass an Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the Y g P g 8th day of July , 1991 at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 regarding public nuisances and petty offenses. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 19 -217. CONDUCT IN OR NEAR SCHOOL BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS. Subdivision 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this section the following terms shall mean: a. "Public school" shall be any school building, school grounds, play area, parking lot or athletic field owned or leased by a public school district. b. "School official" shall be the principal, assistant or associate principal, school security person, any . schoolteacher, or the principal's designee. Subdivision 2. PROHIBITION. No person shall trespass in or upon any public school by remaining upon said school premises after being ordered to leave the public school by a school official. Subdivision 3. PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR RE- ENTRY. No person, having been ordered by a school official to leave a public school and having left said premises, shall re- enter said public school without the written permission of the school principal or the school official who gave the order to leave the public school. Subdivision 4. DEFACEMENT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS. No person shall mark with ink, paint, chalk or other substance, or post _hand bills on, or in any other manner deface or injure fences, trees, lawns or fixtures appurtenant to or located on the public school. No signs ORDINANCE NO, shall be placed or posted anywhere on a public school without the express permission of a school official Section 19- 1805.• PENALTY. Any person found guilty by a lawful authority of violating any provision of this chapter of the ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $700 and by imprisonment for not longer than 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Number �C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to allow a lesser buffer where an industrial use abuts an institutional use DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection ***************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) • On June 10, 1991 the City Council denied Planning Commission Application No. 91006 submitted by Sunlite Properties on the grounds that the standards for a zoning ordinance variance were not met. The applicant had proposed to have a 15' buffer strip between a parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North and the site of the Berean Evangelical Free Church at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. Although the standards for a variance were not met, the Planning Commission believed there was merit in the proposal and had recommended that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow parking in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use such as a church or school in an R1, R2 or R3 zoning district provided that it did not extend to within 15' of the property line. The City Council concurred with this recommendation and on June 10 had a first reading on the ordinance amendment setting July 8, 1991 as a date for public hearing and consideration of adoption. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following public hearing, adopt the ordinance amendment allowing a lesser buffer for a parking lot in an I -1 or I -2 zoning district abutting an institutional use in an R1, R2 or R3 zoning district. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the required buffer when an industrial use abuts an institutional use. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW A LESSER BUFFER WHERE AN INDUSTRIAL USE ABUTS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -413. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN I -1 AND I -2 DISTRICTS. 1. Buffer and Setback Where a proposed I -1 or I -2 development abuts any residential district (R1 through R7) either at a property line or a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established according to the following: a. Where I -1 or I -2 development abuts R1, R2, R3 at a property line, the protective strip shall be no less than 100 feet in width. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveway, off - street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. The landscaped treatment shall contain an opaque fence or wall which shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right - of -way. The fence or wall design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the industrial area. The fence or wall shall be eight feet in height. The protective strip ORDINANCE NO* shall contain no structures other than the approved fence or wall. b. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at a public street line, the protective buffer strip shall be no less that 50 feet in width, shall contain no structures other than screening devices, shall not be used for parking, off - street loading, storage, or any other industrial activity, and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. Activity areas shall be effectively screened from view of the residential district in a manner to be approved by the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 7/8/ Agenda Item Number f 6(1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain land (Hamm's Second Addition) ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: , e< C, - Ljaa-� Ronald A. arren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) On June 10, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91 -145 which approved Planning Commission Application No. 91007 submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. This proposal was a request to rezone from C1 (Service /Office) to R5 (Multiple Family Residential) an approximate 30' x 100' strip of land located along the back of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. This 30' x 100' strip of land would then be transferred by platting to the lot at 4010 65th Avenue North owned by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick in order to provide enough land area to support four dwelling units on that property. The proposed ordinance amendment had a first reading also on June 10, 1991 establishing July 8, 1991 as a date for public hearing and consideration of adoption. This ordinance amendment describes the property that was rezoned under the proper designation of R5 in the zoning ordinance. This is considered a housekeeping type of zoning ordinance amendment needed for a proper description of the land rezoned. The adoption of this ordinance amendment is dependent on the filing of the plat which would transfer the 30' x 100' strip of land from 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard to 4010 65th Avenue North. This plat establishes the new legal descriptions for the properties under consideration. To date that plat has not been released by the engineering department and filed with Hennepin County. Therefore, the legal description contained in the ordinance amendment is nonexistent. SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED PAGE 2 Recommendation Because the plat has not yet been filed and the necessary legal descriptions established, it is recommended that the City Council, following the scheduled public hearing, table this ordinance amendment until the applicant has filed the plat creating the proper legal description. This matter will then come before the City Council for adoption. • �v CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (HAMM'S SECOND ADDITION) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R5). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification. Lot 1, Block 1, Hamm's 2nd Addition. Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl) . The following properties are hereby established as being within the (Cl) Service /Office District zoning classification. Lot 2, Block 1, Hamm's 2nd Addition. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date M9t Agenda Item Number /6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE DEPT. APPROVAL: , Sy Knapp, D' ctor o , ublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: . No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • The plat OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE, recorded in 1961, dedicated drainage and utility easements to the City, along the perimeters of its lots. The owner of a portion of the existing plat, Howard Atkins, is in the process of replatting the property as E & H PROPERTIES ADDITION. The applicant, at this time, is requesting the vacation of the drainage and utility easements which lie along the existing lot lines of OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE (see attached map). The proposed plat of E & H PROPERTIES ADDITION will dedicate similar easements, adjacent to replatted lot lines. The private utility companies providing service to the area are currently reviewing this request. Staff are also reviewing locations of any City -owned utilities to determine if the City should retain any portions of these easements. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION An ordinance is provided for consideration and first reading by the City Council. If the first reading is conducted, the proposed ordinance will be published along with a notice of public hearing. After the second reading and public hearing, the City Council would then consider final adoption of the ordinance. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements in OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3350 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Drainage and Utility easements over, under and across the East 5 feet of Lot 4• and the East 5 feet of Lot 5• and South 5 feet of Lot 5• and the South 5 feet of Lot 6• and the West 5 feet of Lot 6• and the West 5 feet of Lot 7• all in Block 1 OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE according to the recorded plat thereof, are hereby vacated Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor, Todd Paulson ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date PROPOSED E & H PROPERTIES ADDITION Try � i AVENUE /7 86TH P I OT T L 0 0 " NORTH LINE 0 � 2 � °87'17 -,. N. L I N E _C-F LQI- -� - 195. Ep3EMENi M' q AiNA.E 0 U TIUTY I ^r - 75. 47�N 85l0�OS�F' W !l.29 -pp i24 3 W _� _ -225/1 e °o zos w� - 1 Z n -E -- 4.50 9° - . 85 ° O 0 — 1 � 89 16 -N — _ 1 _ 4 14.60 -511 34']7 E � i J i T _ I 10 0. 0 0 ).31- N85 °02'05� - �-� I LINE OF NO j 25 FEE?_OF ` I 02'05 � r gp�TN ` 13.17 - tl J r5 p,!� LOT 5 4 ac 125.n5-N09 °12'n 3'w I 1lp W O J 23.11 N35 37'39'N 1; I t ,'. v I a ul _ to Tt � r --� \ M r � - " O 10 — 1 r J. I I _ 0 L COR. T� w h I TT1 =-` � z L T J h /� 1 ,o ; I LOCATION OF EASEMENT O Ie I i 1 TO BE VACATED o 101 I: ` It ) 1 I I s 5 0 1 � , 10 to N I I I S 8 - 5 84 °48'30 (_ - 323.5 .-T- r r� r• Merila & Associates, Inc. 8 73rd Avenue Nortr), Suite 63 Dtooklyn Park, M.1innesota ��5428-1508 I % h -'l, E T- lephone (612) 533-7595 June 19, 1991 Fax (612) 533-1937 Mr. Mark Maloney, P. E. City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: E & H Properties Addition Merila Project No. 84-124 Dear Mr. Maloney: I am writing on behalf of Mr. Howard Atkins to request the vacation of a drainage and utility easement. The subject easement was created and dedicated to the City of Brooklyn Center on the plat of OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE. The easement is no longer being used and the property is in the process of being replatted for a new use. The drainage and utility easements to be vacated are as follows: The East 5 feet of Lot 4; The East 5 feet of Lot 5; The South 5 feet of Lot 5; The South 5 feet of Lot 6; The West 5 feet of Lot 6; and the West 5 feet of Lot 7; all in Block 1, OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota. I would appreciate if you would put this item on the next available council agenda for discussion. Please advise me if additional information is required and if someone will need to be present at the meeting. Sincerely yours, MERILA & ASSOCIATES, iNC. Walter J. Gregory, L.S. Vice President WJG:mel Enclosure cc: Howard Atkins File: Letters2/84-124.400 ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7_8-91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: BUSINESS ETHICS POLICY DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEWiRECOMIVIENDATION: 21 .4 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUM M.RY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) On September 10, 1990, the city council approved a business ethics policy for public officials of the City of Brooklyn Center. Since then, several questions have arisen regarding conflicts between the policy and actual practice. The first concern relates to the liquor stores manager, who signed an employment agreement with the City that is more restrictive than the approved policy. This concern is addressed by adding subsection 8 to the section entitled "Offering or Accepting Gifts and Gratuities ". The second concern involves prohibiting police officers from accepting meals at a reduced price or for free from area restaurants. Several sentences have been added to the end of subsection 4 of this same section to resolve this concern. Both the existing and proposed (as amended) policies are attached for discussion by the city council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss and approve the amended business ethics policy. • EXISTING to CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS ETHICS POLICY 1. The City of Brooklyn Center shall operate its business in accordance with the highest ethical standards and with the applicable laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. Specific matters or types of transactions not covered by such specific provisions shall be conducted in accordance with the following general policy. 2. For purposes of this statement of business ethics policy, the term "public official" shall include all elected officials, all members of boards or commissions, and the city manager and all employees of the City. The term "employee" shall include those personnel defined as employees in the City's personnel ordinance. OFFERING OR ACCEPTING GIFTS AND GRATUITIES. 1. No public official shall misuse his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for such person or any other person. 2. No public official shall directly or indirectly receive, or agree to receive, any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity in payment for the performance of his or her official duties except as may be provided by law. 3. Whenever a public official deals with a City supplier or customer, he or she has an obligation to act solely in the best interest of the City. This obligation includes not only those acts formalized by written contracts but also covers everyday business relationships with vendors or customers. 4. No public official shall ask for or accept (directly or indirectly) payment, favors, or any other thing of significant value from a current or potential City supplier or customer, or any other person in consideration for assistance or influence, or upon the representation that such assistance or influence has been or will be rendered, in connection with a purchase or any other transaction or proceeding affecting the City. This policy does not bar the acceptance of unsolicited meals, entertainment, or advertising favors which are of negligible value and are legally permissible, when no assistance is given for or any obligation to render assistance is assumed by such acceptance. 5. No public official shall offer or give (directly or indirectly) payments, favors, or any other thing of significant value to an employee or agent of a current or potential supplier, customer, or union in consideration for assistance or influence, or upon the representation that such assistance or influence has been or will be rendered, in connection with a sale or any other transaction or proceeding affecting his or her employer or principal and the City. This policy generally does not apply to meals,.entertainment, or advertising favors which are of insignificant value and are legally permissible and are given or offered without condition that it 'obligate the recipient. 9/10/90 -1- 6. Acceptance or giving of gifts must be limited to incidentals which are obviously of an advertising nature as items of insignificant value, or which in no way would cause the City to be embarrassed or obligated, and no gifts or entertainment may be accepted which, due to value, circumstances, disposition of the gift, frequency or repetition of donation could cause the City to be embarrassed or obligated. Gifts which do not fit in these categories must be returned. 7. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions by City employees should be referred to an employee's immediate supervisor or department head, or the city manager. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions by all other public officials should be referred to the city attorney. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 1. Prohibited Conduct. a. A public official may not engage in any activity or become involved in any arrangement (directly or indirectly) through a family member or any other person acting on his or her behalf which will conflict, or may reasonably be viewed as conflicting, with his or her obligations and responsibilities to the City or involve the use of City information or goodwill for personal gain or for the gain of others. b. A City employee must make prior disclosure of any contemplated consulting, representation, or secondary employment arrangement. If the city manager determines that the proposed activity would violate this policy, the employee may not engage in it and continue City employment. 2. Action to be taken by public official: a. Whenever any public official, in the discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision which would substantially affect the individual's financial interests or those of an associated business, (unless the effect on the individual is no greater than on other members of the official's business classification, profession, or occupation), they shall: i. Prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest; ii. Deliver copies of the statement to the city council, the city manager, and the employee's immediate superior, if any; iii. If a potential conflict of interest presents itself and there is insufficient time to comply with the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii), the public official shall orally inform the city council or superior of the potential conflict. 9/10/90 -2- b. If the public official is not a member of the city council, the city manager shall make a determination in the matter. If there is no immediate superior, the public official shall abstain in a manner prescribed by the city council from influence over the action or decision in question. If the public official is a member of the city council, at the member's request, the city council shall excuse the member from taking part in the action or decision in question. SAFEGUARDING CITY ASSETS 1. The department head or assigned manager /supervisor at each location is responsible for the safeguarding of all City assets and the correctness of data submitted to the finance department and contained in the financial reports. 2. Special protection should be afforded assets which are readily saleable because of high intrinsic value or common usage. Attention should also be given to machinery, equipment, and records which, if damaged, would stop or drastically reduce operations for an extended period. Examples of assets or documents which could provide access to assets and which need protection are: Cash Marketable securities Readily marketable products, parts and subassemblies Precious metals (raw or in any high content form) Check blanks • Stamps /postage meters Common tools and equipment High value, portable equipment Data processing and other office equipment, including programs Vital records 3. Although the preparation of the financial reports is the duty of the finance department, department heads are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the financial data. Consequently, the department heads should be concerned about all those factors which are involved in the propriety of recordkeeping and in the care taken as to the procurement, handling, upkeep, and disposal of assets of all kinds. 4. The objective should be to safeguard City assets and maintain reliable financial records at a level of acceptable business risk. No false, misleading, or artificial entries shall be made on the books and records of the City. No funds or assets shall be maintained by the City for any illegal or improper purpose. All transactions must be fully and completely documented and recorded in the City's accounting records. All City payments, except from authorized petty cash funds, must be approved by the department head or the acting department head in the department head's absence. 9/10/90 -3- POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 0 1 The rights of employees to express their personal views on matters of public policy and to participate in partisan political activities on personal time shall be protected. An employee shall neither gain favor nor incur disadvantages within the City because of any decision or activity regarding the employee's personal political participation. 2. The personnel ordinance governs the political activity as applicable to City employees and is to be consulted for guidance. 3. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions should be discussed with an employee's immediate supervisor, department head, or city manager. 9/10/90 -4- AMENDED CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS ETHICS POLICY 1. The City of Brooklyn Center shall operate its business in accordance with the highest ethical standards and with the applicable laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. Specific matters or types of transactions not covered by such specific provisions shall be conducted in accordance with the following general policy. 2. For purposes of this statement of business ethics policy, the term "public official" shall include all elected officials, all members of boards or commissions, and the city manager and all employees of the City. The term "employee" shall include those personnel defined as employees in the City's personnel ordinance. OFFERING OR ACCEPTING GIFTS AND GRATUITIES. 1. No public official shall misuse his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for such person or any other person. 2. No public official shall directly or indirectly receive, or agree to receive, any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity in payment for the performance of his or her official duties except as may be provided by law. 3. Whenever a public official deals with a City supplier or customer, he or she has an obligation to act solely in the best interest of the City. This obligation includes not only those acts formalized by written contracts but also covers everyday business relationships with vendors or customers. 4. No public official shall ask for or accept (directly or indirectly) payment, favors, or any other thing of significant value from a current or potential City supplier or customer, or any other person in consideration for assistance or influence, or upon the representation that such assistance or influence has been or will be rendered, in connection with a purchase or any other transaction or proceeding affecting the City. This policy does not bar the acceptance of unsolicited entertainment or advertising favors which are of negligible value and are legally permissible, when no assistance is given for or any obligation to render assistance is assumed by such acceptance. No public official may accept free meals or purchase meals, goods, or services at reduced prices from businesses in the City of Brooklyn Center or from vendors which sell or offer to sell goods or services to the City, unless such free meals or discounted meals, goods, or services are available on the same terms to the public at large or to all government employees. This policy does not apply to unsolicited acceptance of a meal which is incidental to a specifically scheduled business meeting relating to City business. 5. No public official shall offer or give (directly or indirectly) payments, favors, or any other thing of significant value to an employee or agent of a current or potential supplier, customer, or union in consideration for assistance or influence, or upon the representation that such assistance or influence has been 7/8/91 -1- or will be rendered, in connection with a sale or any other transaction or proceeding affecting his or her employer or principal and the City. This policy generally does not apply to meals, entertainment, or advertisin g favors which are of insignificant value and are legally permissible and are given or offered g g Y P g without condition that it obligate the recipient. 6. Acceptance or giving of gifts must be limited to incidentals which are obviously of an advertising nature as items of insignificant value, or which in no way would cause the City to be embarrassed or obligated, and no gifts or entertainment may be accepted which, due to value, circumstances, disposition of the gift, frequency or repetition of donation could cause the City to be embarrassed or obligated. Gifts which do not fit in these categories must be returned. 7. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions by City employees should be referred to an employee's immediate supervisor or department head, or the city manager. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions by all other public officials should be referred to the city attorney. 8. The provisions of this policy do not supersede any provision of an employment agreement with the City which is more restrictive than this policy. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 1. Prohibited Conduct. a. A public official may not engage in any activity or become involved in any arrangement (directly or indirectly) through a family member or any other person acting on his or her behalf which will conflict, or may reasonably be viewed as conflicting, with his or her obligations and responsibilities to the City or involve the use of City information or goodwill for personal gain or for the gain of others. b. A City employee must make prior disclosure of any contemplated consulting, representation, or secondary employment arrangement. If the city manager determines that the proposed activity would violate this policy, the employee may not engage in it and continue City employment. 2. Action to be taken by public official: a. Whenever any public official, in the discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision which would substantially affect the individual's financial interests or those of an associated business, (unless the effect on the individual is no greater than on other members of the official's business classification, profession, or occupation), they shall: i. Prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest; 7/8/91 -2- ii. Deliver copies of the statement to the city council, the city manager, and the employee's immediate superior, if any; iii. If a potential conflict of interest presents itself and there is insufficient time to comply with the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii), the public official shall orally inform the city council or superior of the potential conflict. b. If the public official is not a member of the city council, the city manager shall make a determination in the matter. If there is no immediate superior, the public official shall abstain in a manner prescribed by the city council from influence over the action or decision in question. If the public official is a member of the city council, at the member's request, the city council shall excuse the member from taking part in the action or decision in question. SAFEGUARDING CITY ASSETS 1. The department head or assigned manager /supervisor at each location is responsible for the safeguarding of all City assets and the correctness of data submitted to the finance department and contained in the financial reports. 2. Special protection should be afforded assets which are readily saleable because of high intrinsic value or common usage. Attention should also be given to . machinery, equipment, and records which, if damaged, would stop or drastically reduce operations for an extended period. Examples of assets or documents which could provide access to assets and which need protection are: Cash Marketable securities Readily marketable products, parts and subassemblies Precious metals (raw or in any high content form) Check blanks- Stamps /postage meters Common tools and equipment High value, portable equipment Data processing and other office equipment, including programs Vital records 3. Although the preparation of the financial reports is the duty of the finance department, department heads are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the financial data. Consequently, the department heads should be concerned about all those factors which are involved in the propriety of recordkeeping and in the care taken as to the procurement, handling, upkeep, and disposal of assets of all kinds. 4. The objective should be to safeguard City assets and maintain reliable financial records at a level of acceptable business risk. No false, misleading, or artificial entries shall be made on the books and records of the City. No funds 7/8/91 -3- or assets shall be maintained by the City for any illegal or improper purpose. All transactions must be fully and completely documented and recorded in the City's accounting records. All City payments, except from authorized petty cash funds, must be approved by the department head or the acting department head in the department head's absence. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 1 The rights of employees to express their personal views on matters of public policy and to participate in partisan political activities on personal time shall be protected. An employee shall neither gain favor nor incur disadvantages within the City because of any decision or activity regarding the employee's personal political participation. 2. The personnel ordinance governs the political activity as applicable to City employees and is to be consulted for guidance. 3. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions should be discussed with an employee's immediate supervisor, department head, or city manager. 7/8/91 -4- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: REFORESTATION OPPORTUNITIES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irecto of Public Works w_ MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMNIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /atta ed SUIVIlV][ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • The attached memorandum from Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector outlines a revised proposal for a 1991 program of reforestation on private property. The memo also reviews in detail proposed reforestation programs for 1992 for boulevard and park plantings. These 1992 programs could potentially be funded in part from a grant from the federal Small Business Administration. Review and approval by the Council of the 1992 program has some urgency as the application deadline is July 10, 1991. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION There are a number of items to be reviewed, and several decisions to be made. I have listed below each of the items, provided a short discussion, and made a recommendation. Two resolutions are provided for the Council's consideration: one resolution regarding the 1991 program, and one regarding several facets of the 1992 program. 1. 1991 PROGRAM: This "voucher" program would utilize for subsidizing planting on private property $3,000 of the $6,000 budgeted in 1991 for reforestation on public property. Sixty vouchers would be distributed, with priority given to residents who lost a tree on their property in 1990 to disease. Three or four nurseries would be asked to participate. • Decisions Needed: ► Organization of program ► Approval of use of $3,000 in the 1991 Park Maintenance budget to fund this program Staff Recommendation: ► Approval of the program as outlined on page 2 of the memo ► Approval of the resolution authorizing the program and the use of park maintenance funding 2. SBA GRANT PROGRAM The grant application is due to the state July 10, 1991. The state must forward applications to the SBA by July 22, 1991. The state will notify communities of the status of their grants by August 31, 1991. Grants are required to be matched by the communities. If Brooklyn Center requests the maximum grant of $5,000, the Council should be prepared to commit to providing at least $4,500 in capital outlay funds for reforestation in 1992, and $500 in operating funds over three years. Decisions Needed: • ► Program design ► Authorization to submit the grant application ► Commitment of at least $4,500 in capital funds in 1992 ► Authorization to pursue designation as a Tree City USA ► Staff direction regarding items to be included in a proposed tree ordinance ► Declaration of an Arbor Day observance Staff Recommendation: ► Program design: Parks: select Evergreen and Grandview parks for major planting programs; staff selects varieties and locations of plantings in consultation with the Park & Rec Commission; proposals taken from small businesses and contract awarded to plant trees; Arbor Day observance to dedicate the plantings in one of the parks ► Program Design: Boulevards: solicit applications from residents who lost a boulevard tree to disease in 1990 or 1991; residents select varieties and locations of plantings in consultation with staff; proposals taken from small businesses and n contract awarded to lant trees; s city a P � Y s P Y 50% of the cost of a boulevard tree ► Approval of the resolution authorizing the grant • application, committing to the 1992 capital funds, authorizing pursuit of the Tree City USA designation, and declaring an Arbor Day observance . ► Inclusion of all bulleted items listed on page 5 of the attached memo, and any other items the Council suggests, in the tree ordinance. A number of Metro area cities have enacted tree ordinances, and staff will use these as models for drafting an ordinance for a first reading. 3. Global ReLeaf As a Global ReLeaf Cooperator, the City can benefit from the American Forestry Association's expertise. Global ReLeaf has developed a number of educational and other materials which it makes available at no or low cost to cooperators. Brooklyn Center would also then have access to and priority for grants from the Global ReLeaf Fund, which administers corporate and other donations. Membership is $50 annually. Decisions Needed: ► Authorize staff to enroll Brooklyn Center as a Global ReLeaf Cooperator Staff Recommendation: ► Approval of the resolution authorizing this enrollment • MEMORANDUM July 5, 1991 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Specto ,_1 SUBJ: Reforestation Opportunities SUMMARY.- This memo outlines a possible program, which could be implemented in 1991, to assist residents in purchasing trees to be planted on their property. The program would provide for 60 "vouchers" to be awarded to residents meeting certain criteria. Each voucher would represent a $50 City contribution toward purchasing a tree. ! For reforestation on public property, a grant program sponsored by the Small Business Administration is available to provide matching grants for reforestation on public property. If Brooklyn Center were to be awarded such a grant, when matched by funds requested in the 1992 budget, a 1992 reforestation program becomes not only more financially feasible, but could also sponsor reforestation on both public and private property. To be eligible for this grant program, communities must meet the National Arbor Day Foundation's requirements for a Tree City USA. The third part of this memo details those requirements, and recommends that this designation be pursued. The memo also recommends that the City become a Global ReLeaf Cooperator. This membership, which costs $50 annually, provides access to educational and other materials, as well as opportunity to participate in the Global ReLeaf Fund, which administers contributions from corporate and other sponsors. This memorandum presents two different proposals for reforestation programs: one program for trees on private property, that could be implemented in Fall, 1991; and two programs for 1992 for trees on public property, to be funded from a combination of funds requested for 1992 and potential federal /state grant funds. Reforestation - Page 2 The Council on April 22, 1991 received a staff report outlining various reforestation options. The Council directed staff to look into alternatives which were less burdensome administratively. We believe the proposals outlined below are reasonable, affordable, and as minimally administrative as is possible. I. 1991 Program: Trees on Private Property The 1991 budget included $3,000 for boulevard tree replacement and $3,000 for replacement of trees in parks. An additional $5,000 was approved by the Council for reforestation but was eliminated in the Spring, 1991 budget reductions. Approximately $3,000 is left to be spent in 1991 for tree replacement. That $3,000 could be used to rovide 6 50 vouchers residents h fra p 0$ ouc r esto to 1 epde y the cost of purchasing trees for planting on their private property. The program is recommended to be implemented as follows: 1. A $50 voucher would be good towards the purchase of a tree at a participating nursery. Obtaining agreements to participate from three or four nurseries would provide residents with the most choice. 2. Residents who had diseased trees marked on their private property in 1990 through he diseased tree program would be mailed an application. Participation would be limited to one voucher per residence. 3. If more than 60 applications are received, 60 applications would be selected at random. If fewer than 60 are received, all those applying would be granted a voucher, and the program would be opened up to residents losing a tree in 1991 to disease. Again, if more applications are received than vouchers are available, selection would be made at random. 4. Participants could take to their vouchers to participating nurseries, which would then give the resident a $50 discount on selected varieties of trees. If for some reason the selected tree costs less than $50, then the voucher would be good for the cost of the tree. 5. The nursery would forward all collected vouchers to the City for reimbursement. The major administrative cost of the program would be the cost of a mailing to the approximately 400 property owners who had diseased trees marked on their property in 1990. Programs H. 1992 Reforestation -Page 3 There are three components of reforestation: "regular" tree planting in parks and on boulevards to replace trees lost to disease, drought, vandalism, storms, or accidents; reforestation on boulevards; and reforestation on private property. The 1992 budget request includes $3,250 for "regular" replacement of boulevard trees; $3,000 for park tree replacement and reforestation; and $7,800 for boulevard reforestation. These requests have not yet been considered by the Council. A. REFORESTATION ON BOULEVARDS AND IN PARKS A grant program is available through the Small Business Administration to provide additional funding on a matching basis for reforestation on public property. Applications for this funding are due July 10, 1991; if the Council wishes staff to pursue such a grant, the matching funds for 1992 and a program design need to be committed to immediately. The Small Business Administration Natural Resource Development Program is intended to provide grants to states to encourage and develop the capacity of small business concerns. Minnesota's program will provide matching grants of up to $5,000 to communities for reforestation. To be eligible, communities must meet the Tree City USA requirements of the National Arbor Day Foundation. Brooklyn Center already meets some of these requirements; the other requirements can easily be met. Communities may apply for and be awarded grant funds prior to their designation as a Tree City USA; however, funds will not be disbursed until the designation is made. If the Council wishes to pursue such a grant, these are the decisions that need to be made: matching funds; program design; and pursuit of designation as a Tree City USA. 1. Matching Funds Grant funds must be matched by the community. In -kind contributions may be considered, as well as the cost of up to three years' maintenance. The following is the recommended method of structuring the required matching funds. This structure would require the Council to commit at least $4,500 in City capital outlay funds for reforestation in 1992, and $500 in operating funds over three years. Maximum grant= $5,000; planting complete by May 31, 1992 City matching funds: $2,250 - from $3,000 in 1992 for park trees $2,250 - from $7,800 in 1992 for boulevard trees (includes $500 for eng /admin /legal costs of contracts $ 500 - 3 years' maintenance on park trees Reforestation - Page 4 Total funds available for "SBA Program" tree planting: Parks: $2,000 - city funds ( +$250 for other costs) 2,500 - SBA funds $4,500 Blvds: $2,000 - city funds ( +$250 for other costs) 2,500 - SBA funds $4,500 If the Council should in the 1992 budget process approve all the funds requested for boulevard and park reforestation, an additional $750 would still be available for planting in parks and on trails at the Park Maintenance Division's discretion. $5,550 would be available for additional boulevard reforestation, or to continue the voucher program for reforestation on private property, or some combination of programs. 2. Program Design The program would have two components: park planting, and boulevard planting. These would be handled as two separate contracts, to meet the SBA's criterion that the programs divide the work to allow more than one small business to perform work. Parks Planting would be done in one or two parks, for ease of maintenance and to maximize the impact. This approach would also dovetail with the Park & Rec Commission's desire to comprehensively redo parks. Two parks identified by staff are Evergreen and Grandview. Playground and other equipment will be relocated at Evergreen, and there will be opportunities to plant substantial numbers of trees. Some equipment replacement for Grandview is included in the 1992 budget request. Boulevards The boulevard tree program outlined in my April, 1991 reforestation proposal would be the basis for this program. Briefly, all residents who lost a boulevard tree in 1990 or 1991 would be invited to participate. A contract would be awarded to plant boulevard trees. At an average cost of $100 (bare root, planted), the proposed $4,500 program would plant about 45 trees. If residents contributed half the cost, about 90 trees could be planted. 3. Tree City USA To be designated a Tree City USA, Brooklyn Center must meet the following criteria. Each item includes discussion as to how that requirement could be met. Reforestation - Page 5 a. Designation of Tree Board or Department Designate in the tree ordinance (Point b below) the Public Works Department responsible for public trees b. Tree Ordinance The City must have atree ordinance, which should: designate the tree board or department responsible for trees on public property; delineate responsibilities for public trees; and recommend species for boulevard plantings. The following are items which could be included. o Location and spacing for boulevard trees: current policy specifies a minimum of 8 feet from back of curb or edge of street, and spacing 40 feet apart o Pruning and maintenance responsibilities: current policy specifies that the City is responsible for storm damaged boulevard trees, and for trimming those trees to allow for the movement of tall street maintenance equipment. Residents are responsible for trimming for aesthetics, and to maintain visibility at intersections. Q Responsibilities for removing diseased trees: Sections 19- 1501 -1506 of the ordinances address some of the issues. In addition, it is current City policy for the City to pay 50% of the cost of removal of diseased bolevard trees and stumps. o Responsibility regarding dead (but not diseased) trees and stumps in the boulevard: current practice is to require all boulevard dead trees and stumps to be removed under the general nuisance ordinance, and allow residents to participate in the diseased tree contract. If residents choose to use the city's tree contract, the city pays 50% of the cost. C. Community Forestry Program of $2 or More Per Capita Given the City's population, minimum expenditures under the standards would be about $60,000. The following are the 1990 expenditures by the divisions of the Public Works Department: Equipment S al ary & Other Engineering: Diseased Tree Admin $3,573.58 $ Contract Administration 256.90 Streets: Boulevard Tree Maintenance 22,605.03 7,307.00 Reforestation - Page 6 Parks: Trees and Shrubs 8,111.14 44,180.91 Disease Control 12.93 $47,706.83 $55,199.81 Total expenditures in 1990 were $102,906.64. d. Arbor Day Observance An Arbor Day observance in 1992 could be held to dedicate the plantings in the parks accomplished through the proposed SBA grant. B. REFORESTATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY If the voucher program as proposed above proves successful, it could be repeated in 1992. Funding could come from part or all of the remaining $5,800 for boulevard reforestation requested in the 1992 budget. If the Council wished to proceed using part of these funds, say $3,000, the remaining $2,800 could be used to increase the boulevard planting program. III. Other Programs Available The American Forestry Association sponsors a program titled Global ReLeaf. A $50 annual contribution by an individual, group, or government entity provides a number of benefits. Global ReLeaf can supply educational and organizational materials. Global ReLeaf Cooperators also have access to the Global ReLeaf Fund, which exists to receive and disburse contributions from corporate and other donors. I recommend that Brooklyn Center become a Global ReLeaf Contributor. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A 1991 REFORESTATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center desires to assist the residents of Brooklyn Center in reforesting private property within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has proposed making sixty $50 vouchers available to residents to help defray the cost of purchasing trees; and WHEREAS, $3,000 is available in the Park Maintenance 1991 budget for landscaping materials, intended to be used for reforestation in parks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. There is established a program to be known as the 1991 Residential Reforestation Program." 2. The City Manager is directed to make sixty $50 vouchers available to residents for purchase of trees. 3. This program limits such vouchers to one per residence. 4. The City Manager is directed to obtain an agreement to participate from no more than three nurseries. 5. Residents who had a diseased tree on their private property marked for removal in 1990 through the Diseased Tree Program shall have priority in the awarding of these vouchers. If more residents apply than there are vouchers available, award shall be made first on the basis of that priority, and then randomly. 6. All costs for this program shall be charged to the Park Maintenance Division No. 69, Object No. 4235. I 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REFORESTATION GRANT PROPOSAL, PURSUIT OF DESIGNATION AS A TREE CITY USA, ENROLLMENT AS A GLOBAL RELEAF COOPERATOR, AND DECLARING AN ARBOR DAY OBSERVANCE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center desires to aggressively pursue reforestation opportunities in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, staff have developed a proposal which could be submitted to the Small Business Administration for a reforestation grant; and WHEREAS, to be eligible for these grant funds Brooklyn Center must meet the Tree City USA requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. There are established programs to be known as the "1992 Boulevard Reforestation Program" and the "1992 Park Reforestation Program." 2. If Brooklyn Center is awarded a Small Business Administration Community Tree Planting grant, the City Council agrees to appropriate in the 1992 budget at least $4,500 in capital funds to provide matching funds. 3. Staff are hereby directed to prepare and submit an application for a grant of $5,000. 4. Staff are hereby directed to prepare Brooklyn Center's application for designation as a Tree City USA, including preparation of a Municipal Tree Ordinance for first reading, so that the City may qualify for this grant. 5. The City shall hold an official Arbor Day observance. Staff are directed to organize that observance. 6. Staff are hereby authorized to enroll Brooklyn Center as a Global ReLeaf Cooperator. Resolution No. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Discussion Item: Proposed office building at North Lyn Apartments site ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of P anning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) • Mr. David Sellergren, an attorney representing Chazin Properties, owner of the North Lyn Apartments, has requested an appearance before the City Council to discuss a proposal whereby Chazin Properties could subdivide off a portion of the North Lyn Apartments to create a parcel capable of an office development. In a letter dated May 16, 1991 to the City Manager requesting an appearance before the City Council, Mr. Sellergren describes the area they wish to subdivide from the North Lyn Apartments as a vacant and nonfunctional .7 acre portion of the 6.3 acre apartment site. He would propose to then develop this site with a 9,300 sq. ft. office building. He characterizes this as infill development of underutilized land. This matter is the subject of a variance request (Planning Commission Application No. 90023) submitted by Mr. Sellergren on behalf of his client in August, 1990. This variance request was from the density requirements of Section 35 -400 to allow a greater density of apartment units to land area so that the .7 acre could be divided off and developed as an office building. Under the present ordinance requirements, the entire 6.3 acres of land in the North Lyn Apartment complex is needed to support the 102 apartment units on the site. The density requirement in the R5 zoning . district is 16 units per acre (2,700 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit). The proposed .7 acre division would leave the complex with a density of approximately 18.2 units per acre. SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 2 Attached are copies of the Planning Commission minutes from October 18 1990 and August 16, 1990 along with the Planning Commission Information Sheet relating to Planning Commission No. 90023. As the minutes note, there was extensive discussion among the Planning Commission, the staff and the applicant regarding the proposed variance, the use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance, eliminating dwelling units and adding recreational facilities to meet density requirements. The Planning Commission had some objections to using the PUD Ordinance and was concerned about the adverse precedent of granting a variance. Some members believed the proposal did not meet the standards for variance. The matter was tabled and the staff was directed to further study possible options. The staff, including the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Director of Planning and Inspection and the Planner reviewed various alternatives including the variance, use of the PUD and providing open space in addition to Mr. Sellergren's submitted proposal to amend the ordinance by drafting a text amendment which would give the North Lyn Apartments a 15% break for being close to publicly owned recreational open space (Brooklyn Center High School) as indicated in his October 29, 1990 letter. These options were considered with the staff concluding that a • variance would not be appropriate because all four standards could not be met especially standard (a) which requires that the conditions for a variance are unique to the specific parcel of land and standard (c) requiring that the hardship has not been created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. There are other parcels that have similar types of appendages which would then be allowed the same consideration. Also, the current owners were the ones that presented the present configuration for development with the unused portion of land that is now claimed to be a problem. Furthermore, allowing a lesser density for such a land division might be used to successfully argue the right of other apartment owners to add apartment units to meet the same density standards rather than to just divide off land. The PUD Ordinance was discussed also and it was believed that this should only be used if it involved further redevelopment in this area, for instance, involving a consolidation of this land with the I -1 or C -2 zoned land adjacent to it in some type of overall redevelopment proposal. The staff also reviewed the proposed ordinance text language and believed it was being written to solely and exclusively allow a greater density for this particular parcel and may, in the long run, become a problem in trying to defend. SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 3 The City Attorney conveyed all of these concerns to Mr. Sellergren and, quite frankly, we could not come up with a proposal that would seem to adequately address all of these concerns and allow the proposal to go forth. We believe the proposal had basically died until Mr. Sellergren's letter to Mayor Paulson on March 5, 1991. Also attached with the information is the March 5, 1991 letter to Mayor Paulson, Mayor Paulson's May 6, 1991 response to Mr. Sellergren and Mr. Sellergren's May 16, 1991 letter to the City Manager. We will re are p p d to discuss this matter further with the City Council at Monday evening's Council meeting. . g g • connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. 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: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. / OTHER BUSINESS G� The Secretary then reminded the Planning Commission that the variance application (Planning Commission Application No. 90023) submitted by Alan Chazin had been tabled in August and the time for action under the ordinance had arrived. He stated that there had been discussions amongst the staff and with the applicant and that they have not come to any conclusion on how to proceed. He stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Sellergren, an attorney representing the applicant, asking that the application be tabled. He asked the Commission to acknowledge the letter and take an action tabling Application No. 90023. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 90023 AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to table Application No. 90023 at the applicant's request. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. -- DISCUSSION Commissioner Mann asked how many C1 uses existed on R5 parcels at present and whether it was not appropriate to rezone those parcels to C1. The Secretary answered that most of the office uses on R5 property were located in the neighborhood of 70th and Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Pro tem Ainas recommended that the City deal with such rezoning applications as the need arises. The Secretary related the history of the parcel at the southwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and I -94, that it was formerly zoned R5 and that an office development and a church development were proposed on the property and that eventually it was rezoned to C1 to preclude multiple family development. There followed a brief discussion of office uses in the R5 zone. There was also a brief discussion of the acquisition of land at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard for the 69th Avenue widening project. 10-18-90 5 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty /barber shop with a single operator. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. On- street parking is expressly prohibited. 4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her property prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on an appointment -only basis. 6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one time shall not exceed 10. 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and complete all required building improvements prior to issuance of the special use permit. 8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90023 (Alan Chazin) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by Alan Chazin for a lot area or density variance at the North Lyn Apartments at 6511 -6521 Humboldt Avenue North to allow the existing 102 unit complex on a smaller land parcel in order to subdivide off .7 acre of land for an office development. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90023 attached). The Secretary added a number of other points during and after his review of the staff report. He noted that he had talked with the City Assessor and that the City Assessor questioned whether the tax 8 -16 -90 3 benefit from the proposed office development would be $40,000 to $50,000 per year. He stated that he had also talked with the City Attorney who has expressed some concern about whether the Standards for a variance are met in this case. He stated that staff have not evaluated the Planned Unit Development idea to any great extent. He stated that the City Attorney had expressed concern that the standards may not be met and that possibly a PUD should be considered. The Secretary went on to state that he did not believe anything larger than a 9,300 sq. ft. office building should be allowed even if a variance is granted. Noting other comparable situations around the City, the Secretary acknowledged that a number of other variances might be granted. He asked what affect this would have on the rights of other apartment owners who are living within the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted the three -plex at 4010 65th Avenue North which has been an enforcement problem almost since it was built because they have tried to add a fourth unit on land which is only large enough for three dwelling units. He stated that he did not want to complicate that situation by granting a variance here. He stated that he was not sure how to look at this proposal as a PUD, but that perhaps that needs further consideration. Commissioner Mann asked how many excess units if the land were subdivided off and the variance granted. The Planner responded that it would be 10 or 11 units over the allowable maximum. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that if a variance were granted, the apartment complex would be allowed to continue without being a nonconforming use. Commissioner Bernards asked what recreational facilities existed on the site. The Secretary responded that he was not aware of any. Mr. Alan Chazin pointed out that there is an outdoor pool on the property. Chairperson Malecki noted the objective of consolidating land along Brooklyn Boulevard and requiring a minimum of one acre of land for office developments. She asked whether this would be a requirement here. The Secretary acknowledged that the .7 acre parcel would be less than the acre requirement, but that the one acre area is required in the C1 zone, not the R5 zone. He recommended that the Commission not take an acre of land from the apartment site. Commissioner Sander summarized some of the requests being sought, namely a variance on density, a special use permit for offices, and a special use for shared parking. The Secretary stated that he did not recommend that shared parking be allowed. He stated that if the variance were granted he would recommend no shared parking. The Secretary stated that he did not believe that the apartment complex was overcrowded on its main site. He stated that his impression as he traveled by and through the property that the .7 acre area of land is not integral to the apartment complex. 8 -16 -90 4 The Planner reported to the Secretary and the Commission that Section 35 -314 of the Zoning Ordinance does in fact require office developments within the R5 zone to meet the C1 district requirements and that this means that 1 acre of land is in fact required. He added, however, that he did not recommend taking more land away from the apartment complex than is proposed by the applicant. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Sellergren, representative for the applicant, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the office proposal has been discussed with the Secretary and the Planner for about two years. He acknowledged that they had felt that the proposal was for too much office space. He agreed not to push for an 11,700 sq. ft. office building tonight, but showed the Commission a layout for a 9,300 sq. ft. office building which would fit on the property. Mr. Sellergren stated that the owners, the Chazins, have looked at the land area left over by their development for 20 years since it was originally built. He stated that they wished to make use of it in some economical way. He then showed the Commission a schematic drawing of an office building which they would like to build on the site. He added that the Chazins own about 500 apartment units within the City and they have been a good citizen, keeping their properties well maintained. Mr. Sellergren went on to state that he had ideas for an ordinance amendment in the past, but that staff recommended a variance request as a vehicle for getting the matter considered by the Planning Commission. He stated that the land in question does not really serve the apartment complex. He stated that there would be practical benefits to developing the property. He also stated that he had contacted Barton - Aschman to analyze whether shared parking would work and that Barton - Aschman had concluded that it would work in this case. Mr. Sellergren stated that he felt that the Standards for a Variance can be met in this case and that he would work with the City Attorney on fashioning appropriate language if the Commission was open to a variance action. Mr. Sellergren stated that an office building would be an asset to the community and he urged approval of the variance. He noted the concern regarding precedent and that a PUD may be an option in this case. Commissioner Ainas stated that he personally favored the concept of an office building, but that he did not favor a PUD. He admitted that the letter of the PUD ordinance might permit the type of arrangement proposed by the applicant, but that he did not believe it would meet the intent of the ordinance. He stated that while the 9,300 sq. ft. building would generate less revenue, this would be offset by lower costs. 8 -16 -90 5 The Secretary stated that the staff's discussions with the applicant have not been adversarial, but that both parties have been trying to look at a way to work something out if possible. He asked the Planning Commission direction and added that more time may be needed to arrive at some resolution of the issue. Mr. Sellergren added that the variance request is simply an avenue for getting the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and need not be the vehicle for allowing the development. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. Chazin whether he had anything to add. Mr. Alan Chazin, an owner of the property, pointed out that he and his father owned other properties in the City. He stated that they would build and manage the office building as they have the apartment units in the City. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90023) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present to comment regarding the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not feel a PUD should be considered, that it would be an abuse in this case. He also stated that he opposed shared parking between the apartment complex and the office building. He stated that he would be in favor of whatever variances would be legal. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Ainas whether the Standards for a Variance are met. Commissioner Ainas responded in the affirmative, but added that he felt the development should be limited to 9,300 sq. ft. of office space. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt that it was unfortunate that when the building was built the site had the appendages. He noted that creates problems for the property owner down the line, but stated that he was not too sympathetic with the variance request. He stated that he felt the property owner would have to live with the previous decision and that he did not feel that the Standards for a Variance were met. He stated that he did not know whether a PUD was appropriate either, but that a variance was not the way he preferred to go. Commissioner Mann stated that she was concerned about setting a precedent. She preferred to make the 5.7 acre parcel conforming by reducing the number of units and that perhaps recreational facilities could be added within the building in place of the units. 8 -16 -90 6 Commissioner Holmes stated that he tended to side with Commissioner Ainas. He stated he could see the development possibilities for the site, but he asked whether the City would be getting into a pandora's box by setting a precedent that would be repeated elsewhere. The Secretary stated that this could be a concern. He added that the City could take another look at the request and perhaps approach it from a different angle. He again stated that the Planning Commission does not have to act at this meeting. He stated that he would like to talk to the City Attorney further if a variance was to be granted. He pointed out that the situation up on 69th Avenue North with the Humboldt Court Apartments would allow for the arm of land to be added to another parcel and developed. He stated that the City Attorney had asked him what the City would do if the North Lyn Apartments were being proposed now. He stated that he answered that he would discourage the creation of the arm of land around the service station. He stated that the North Lyn Apartments complex was a good complex and he did not feel that there would be a real problem if the underutilized area in question were developed. He stated that the staff can take another look at the issue and bring something back. He stated that the vacant land area in question has been an issue waiting to happen and that it would have to be addressed someday. He added that he, too, did not want to abuse the PUD ordinance. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was not proposing to grant a variance tonight. He acknowledged that there was work to be done, but stated that he did not like using the PUD option in this case. Mr. Sellergren stated that he was not trying to force an action by the Planning Commission immediately, but asked whether the Planning Commission wanted the applicant and the staff to explore the use of land. Commissioner Sander stated that if a variance is granted, it would open up a can of worms for other properties in town. She stated that she did not feel it met the Standards for a Variance at this time and recommended that staff work on the matter some more. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that the City could consider an ordinance change on the density requirement. Chairperson Malecki stated that that would be chipping away at the City's standards. She added that she was afraid that developers would abuse the situation if they know that a variance might be granted down the road if unutilized areas are left on a site plan. She stated that she was not opposed to the development, but did not want to chip away at the ordinance. The Planner then reminded the Commission that Brooklyn Center is a developed community facing many of the same problems that Minneapolis faces with underutilized land. He stated that there are very few vacant lots left in the City and that the City has to make the best of what it has left at this time. He noted that a recent lot variance in the R2 zone on Morgan Avenue and stated that the City will be dealing with other infill situations much more in the future than it has in the past. 8-16-90 '7 Chairperson Malecki stated that some people are concerned with the PUD option. The Secretary responded that the staff have not looked at that possibility closely. He stated that variances are intended to deal with these kinds of situations as the report points out. He noted a couple of other similar arms of land in the community and stated that variances might be warranted in those situations also. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was also concerned about setting a precedent, but that he felt a variance was a lesser of two evils. He stated that using a PUD in this situation might be an abuse of the ordinance. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had reservations about the proposal. He stated that he was thinking of the residents near the Garden City Court Apartments and their concern about recreational facilities. He suggested that staff also look at the possibility of utilizing the area for some recreational purpose that might benefit the apartments. The Secretary agreed. He pointed out that both apartment complexes were built at the same density, but that the North Lyn Apartment complex seems to have a better layout even without the .7 acre area of land that the applicants wish to divide off. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 90023 (Alan Chazin) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 90023 and direct staff to study further possible options for the property in question. Commissioner Bernards asked whether one of the options to be considered was the option he had discussed of adding recreational facilities to the area. The Secretary stated that that was his understanding that that was an option to be considered. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:02 p.m. and resumed at 9:07 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 90022 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone from I -1 to C1A six parcels of land between I94 and Summit Drive and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90022 attached). The Secretary added that the concern of the City Council regarding the C2 zoning application submitted last year was that it would allow a retail use in the area in question. He stated that the City really does not want retail on the vacant parcels south of the freeway. He stated that 8 -16 -90 8 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90023 Applicant: Alan Chazin Location: 6511 -6521 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a greater density of apartment units to land area than permitted b ordinance at the North Lyn Apartments, 6511 Y Y P and 6521 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the north by the Berean Evangelical Free Church, on the east b Humboldt Avenue North (Brooklyn Center High h ( Y g School is across the street) , by Duke's Standard service station on the southeast, by Freeway Boulevard on the south (Days Inn is across the street) , and by the Spec. I Industrial Building and Hoffman Engineering on the west. The variance application arises because the applicant, Mr. Alan Chazin, wishes to subdivide off an arm of land adjacent to Freeway Boulevard from the apartment site and develop it as an office site. The resulting land area left for the North Lyn apartments would not meet the land area requirements for the R5 zone (the site is already built to its maximum density and there is virtually no excess for other development). Hence, the request for a variance from the land area requirements contained in Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant's Submittal The applicant's legal representative, Mr. David Sellergren of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren Ltd., has submitted a lengthy letter (attached) in which he describes the site, outlines the proposal and addresses the issues of a density variance, a special use permit for an office building in the R5 zone, and a proposal for a shared parking arrangement with the apartment complex. Although the special use permit and the shared parking questions will have to be addressed in due course, the first item of consideration must be the density variance since, without it, there can be no office development at all. We will, therefore, address first and foremost the variance request and the arguments made by the applicant's legal representative in respect thereof. The proposal is basically to take .7 acre of a 6.3 acre site and develope it for an 11,700 sq. ft. office development, leaving 5.6 acres for the 102 apartment units, or approximately 18.2 units per acre (the R5 maximum is 16 units /acre). Variance Request "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the i ndividual ro ert under consideration. P P Y However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is Application No. 90023 continued located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out." Applicant: "The Project Property is a small parcel which abuts existing land uses located within three different zoning districts. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the development must be compatible with all three districts and existing uses. The unique shape of the original North Lyn Apartment parcel result in this "vestigial remnant" of land sandwiched between commercial and light industrial uses. It is apparent that the Project Property is not "functionally necessary" to the apartment use because it is located across a large parking area and is not utilized as a recreational facility. The Project Property has not been developed in the twenty years since the apartment complex was constructed, despite the fact that it is located in a part of the City in which high - quality commercial and residential development has occurred rapidly." Staff: These arguments seem more attuned to a request to rezone a vacant parcel of land. It should be pointed out that "the Project Property" is not at this time a separate parcel which has remained vacant while adjacent parcels have been developed. It is an underutilized part of the North Lyn Apartments site which was developed over 20 years ago. It is questionable whether even an economic hardship exists since the 6.3 acres of land supporting the North Lyn Apartments is the same amount of land as would be required in other parts of the City. There is a question, however, of whether the underutilization of an otherwise valuable area of land constitutes a practical hardship. Is it reasonable or prudent for the City to insist on this arm of land belonging to the apartment property when it has had no practical value as such and would provide aesthetic and tax benefits if developed in an appropriate manner? The original site plan for the apartments showed no intended use of the .7 acre area in question. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "As noted above, the Project Property is unique. As the surrounding area developed, the resulting development pattern created an open space between commercial and light industrial land 8 -16 -90 2 Application No. 90023 continued uses that is not put to any practical of efficient use. We are aware of no other similarly situated parcels within the City." Staff: The applicant argues that the surrounding land use pattern makes this arm of land unique. This may be true and again raises the issue of what is the most appropriate use of this land. Standard (a) refers to "particular physical surroundings, shape..." This is not the only instance of a multiple- family parcel wrapped around a commercial site, leaving a narrow, possibly unusable appendage. The Humboldt Courts Apartments has such an appendage which reaches up to 69th Avenue North. There is also an 18 unit complex with two arms of land which wrap around Wes's Amoco and reach out to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Evergreen Apartments formerly had some wider appendages reaching out to West River Road. These were eliminated when Highway 252 was widened and relocated. In retrospect, these appendages, while they help to meet literal land area requirements, serve little, if any, functional purpose. They should be avoided whenever possible in the future. While there are other instances of unusable appendages, this "shape" is still somewhat rare. It may be that this and the other instances mentioned should be considered for variance action because of their relative uniqueness and the surrounding development pattern which may suggest a more practical use of the land. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "The hardship is brought about by the strict application of the ordinance requirements." Staff: The hardship of an underutilized area of land certainly had its origin in the platting of the property in the 1960 The .7 acre arm of land was created at that time by the owner with the concurrence of the City. In hindsight, it appears that some better division of the land could have been made with fewer apartment units and more commercial use. The question is whether it is more beneficial to the public welfare to make the landowner live with this mistake or whether the public interest would be better served by having the property developed. From a narrow legal perspective, the former seems to be the proper course. From an economic perspective, the latter may be more prudent. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 8 -16 -90 3 Application No. 90023 continued Applicant: "The granting of the variance to permit the development of the Project Property with an office building would not be detrimental or injurious to the public welfare or surrounding properties. In fact, there are significant positive impacts. First, the 11,700 square foot office building would generate $40,000 - $50,000 each year in new real estate taxes. Second, an office structure of this size would create employment opportunities for approximately 50 to 60 new employees. Third, the use would not generate potential adverse off -site impacts such as noise, dust, odors, glare and smoke. Fourth, the office structure would provide a visible and physical buffer between the highly traveled road to the south and the residential area to the north. Finally, the variance permitting this proposal would facilitate the efficient use of the land." The applicant adds in a separate section that a variance can be contemplated here because open space is available across Humboldt Avenue North at the High School. Staff: We agree with many of the points raised by the applicant regarding this last standard. However, it should be clear that the City will not relax its standards simply to get additional tax revenue. That should be a secondary consideration if given any weight at all. The crux of the issue seems to be whether granting the variance will result in overcrowding on the North Lyn Apartments site. The open space across Humboldt is of some value, but is intended for use primarily by high school students and is not, strictly speaking, a park for the apartment dwellers. The .7 acre area in question is not equipped with recreational facilities and the original approved plans for the complex show no planned use of the area. We are not aware of any regular use of the area by tenants. Again, in hindsight, it probably would have been better if this area were developed commercially from the beginning and if fewer apartments had been built on a smaller parcel. The major threat to the public welfare presented by this variance is the prospect that ordinance standards which have been applied uniformly across the City would be compromised in this case and perhaps weakened in the future. We see little practical detriment to the public in this case. The detriment is mostly theoretical. It should be pointed out that while ordinances should have some valid theoretical basis, much, if not all, of their value lies in making better practical results. The variance process is, therefore, established to allow for some adjustments from the ordinance requirements in large part to achieve better practical results. We would agree that, in this case, the practical benefits outweigh the costs and some adjustment may be considered to help bring this about. Shared Parking The applicant has also proposed that the new office development share parking and access with the existing apartment complex. The 8 -16 -90 4 Application No. 90023 continued proposal is for an 11,700 sq. ft., two - storey office building on the .7 acre parcel with 35 on -site parking spaces. The total parking requirement for the building would be at least 59 parking stalls. The applicant proposes to allow the office building to have shared use of up to 77 parking stalls on the North Lyn Apartments property and to have an access drive between the two sites. The applicant's representative states that "the proposed shared parking meets the parking demands of the two facilities which are perfectly compatible because of the difference in parking needs based on the peak operating hours of the office and apartments." Mr. Sellergren notes that the City's joint parking provisions in Section 35 -720 and the definition of joint parking in Section 35 -900 state that joint parking is "for the convenience of the respective uses which share the same parking stalls at different times and cannot be used to meet the ordinance's parking requirements for the off -site use." (The applicant does propose to meet two different parking requirements with the same stalls in this case.) Mr. Sellergren goes on to point out that the City's Comprehensive Plan contains a land use policy ( #25) which recommends that "new commercial development or redevelopment complements or improves existing adjacent development through the use of proper building design and orientation, shared parking and access (emphasis added), landscape, and appropriately scaled signage." Mr. Sellergren then suggests that a variance could be granted from the strict enforcement of the joint parking provisions of the ordinance. Our response to the shared parking proposal is that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow shared parking and access between commercial and residential uses at this time, unless it was part of a Planned Unit Development, and we feel the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan applies more to adjacent commercial uses, not a commingling of commercial and residential activities. We have tried to achieve shared access in the development of the Target and Brookview Plaza sites. We generally leave joint parking arrangements that are for convenience, and are not related to development rights, to the private sector. Section 35 -314 subsection le. of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to permitted accessory uses in the R5 district allows for: "Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. (emphasis added) Such accessory uses to include, but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off - street parking and off - street loading. 8 -16 -90 5 Application No. 90023 continued Since the proposed commercial parking is an accessory use which is not permitted in the R5 district, we believe any variance to allow such parking would be a use variance which is not permitted by either City ordinance or state law. It should also be pointed out that the City's joint parking provisions do not allow the same parking stall to be counted toward two or more separate parking requirements. The only way to acknowledge this sort of arrangement might be through approval of a Planned Unit Development. Our preliminary judgment is that the proposed development and the North Lyn Apartments are not arranged and designed as a PUD. We are also not sure that this arrangement meets the requirements for a PUD outlined in Section 35 -355 of the Zoning Ordinance. We would conclude that a variance on joint parking is not at all appropriate and a PUD is questionable. Without shared parking, the .7 acre site can support a 9,300 sq. ft. office building (see plan attached) . We feel this is a reasonable and appropriate use of the property. Conclusion /Recommendation In conclusion, we feel that there is some merit to the land area variance request, that the standards may be met in that case. However, we believe that a variance to allow shared parking between commercial and residential uses would be very inappropriate, though this concept could be comprehended under a PUD. The Commission may wish to give direction on this latter question as well as on the variance application. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -16 -90 6 JAMES P. LARKIN jj �T 'T-�, T �T T -{ L1N T �T LTD. B. PLUNKETT ROBERT L. HOFFMAN L 'ARHi T`'{ T HOFFMA_ T DAL 1 & LGRE -V T L TD. ALAN L. KILOOW JACK F. DAL Y KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN O. KENNETH LINDGREN MICHAEL B. LE BARON WENDELL R. ANDERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW GREGORY E. KORSTAO GERALD H. FRIEDELL AMY DARK GRADY L LAN E. MULLIGAN CATHERINE ANDERSON T WILSON' OBERT J. HENNESS'cY JEFFREY C. ANDERSON 10 AMES C. CRICK ON ISOO NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER DANIEL L. BOWLES OWARD J. DRISCOLL TODD M. VLATKOVICH GENE N. FULLER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS DAVID C. SELLERGREN LI5A A. GRAY RICHARD J. KEENAN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA S5431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 GARY A, RENNEKE JOHN D. FULL M ER THOMAS H. WEAVER ROBERT E. BOYLE TELEPHONE 1612) 835 -3800 TELEPHONE (6121 338 -6610 SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE FRANK 1. HARVEY GARY A. VAN CLEVE CHARLES S. MODELL FAX (6121 896-3333 FAX (612) 336-9760 MICHAEL 8 BRAMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN GAYLEN L. KNACK JOHN R. BEAT TIE JULIE A. WRABE LINDA H. FISHER CHP I STO PHER J. HARRISTHAL THOMAS P. STOLTMAN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE SHARON L. SRENNA STEVEN G. LEVIN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU MICHAEL C. JACKMAN 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 TIMOTHY J. KEANE JOHN E. DI EHL WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. JON S. SWIERZEWSKI COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 THEODORE A. MONOALE THOMAS J. FLYNN JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN JAMES P, QUINN TELEPHONE 1612) 766 DANIEL W. VOSS TODD I. FREEMAN MARK A. RURIK STEPHEN B. SOLOMON FAX (6121 786 JOHN R. HILL PETER K. BECK JAMES K. MARTIN JEROME H. KAHN STEVEN P. KATKOV SHERRILL R. OMAN THOMAS J. SEYMOUR GERALD L. SECK MICHAEL J. SMITH JOHN B. LUNDQUIST RENAY W. LEONE DAY LE NOLAN• FREDERICK K. HAUSER III THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. MARY E. VOS MICHAEL T. Mc KIM LOREN A.SINGER CHARLES R. WEAVER Reply to Bloomington HERMAN L.TALLE VINCENT G. ELLA OF COUNSEL ANDREW J. MITCHELL JOHN A. COT T ER - JOSEPH GITIS BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER RICHAPO A. NORDBYE DAVID J. PEAT ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN May 16, 1991 Jerry Splinter City Manager Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway rooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 RE: Proposed office building - North Lyn Apartments site Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Splinter: On behalf of Chazin Properties, the owner of North Lyn Apartments, I request an appearance before the City Council to discuss the attached suggested text amendment for the Brooklyn Center Zoning Code. I request that we be placed on the agenda of Tuesday, May 28, 1991, assuming that is the next regularly- scheduled City Council meeting. Chazin Properties wishes to subdivide a vacant and nonifunctional .7 acre parcel from a 6.3 acre site and develop it for a 9,300 square foot office building. The remaining 5.6 acres contain a 102 unit apartment complex. It can fairly be characterized as an "infill" development of under utilized land. The proposed text amendment allows this to happen by way of the Council's determination to approve a service /office special use. If the Council issues the special use permit, then the minimum land area requirement per unit for the existing apartment building is reduced by 15 %. In this way, the apartment building does not become a nonconforming use. If this text amendment is adopted, Chazin Properties is then in a position to apply , for a special use permit for the office building which it wishes to build. LARKIN, HOFFtI k \, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. erry Splinter ay 16, 1991 Page 2 This matter has been discussed at length with Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections, Gary Shallcross,,Planner, and to some extent with Charles LeFevere, your City Attorney. It has also been discussed with Mayor Paulson, who indicated in correspondence dated May 6,1991, his opinion that the excess parcel on the North Lyn Apartments site P ought to be developed. On August 16, 1990, the office building proposal was presented to the Planning Commission, which considered whether the granting of a variance to allow office development was appropriate; no conclusion was reached. The Planning staff report to the Planning Commission in August of 1990 expressed reservations about whether the proposal met variance standards. Nevertheless, it stated, "... 7 acre site can support a 9,3Q0 square foot office building We feel this is a reasonable and aRproyriate use of the property," It also stated "Some adjustment may be considered to help bring this about If there remain concerns about the granting of a variance, we think the proposed text amendment is a reasonable "adjustment ". The proposed text amendment is attached to this letter. D in my letter of March 5, 1991, to the Mayor, I enclosed background materials, including location map and proposed site plan. I assume you have those materials. Additional information can be found in our letter of August 1, 1990, regarding the variance request and the previously mentioned staff report. If you wish additional materials for the agenda packet, please call. We believe it is appropriate to discuss this with the City Council, since it is the practical equivalent of a property owner - initiated zone change. Chazin Properties has been at this for some time and wishes to bring discussions to a conclusion. Sincerely yours, David C. Sellergren, or LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. DCS:GO6SG cc: Chazin Properties Todd Paulson, Mayor of Brooklyn Center Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections, Brooklyn Center PROPOSAL Amend Section 35- 314,3.B4 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance In those situations where the service - office parcel is being subdivided from a developed R5 parcel which is within 350 feet of 20 or more acres of publicly owned open space and which abuts nonresidential land for 50% or more of its perimeter, the minimum land area requirement for the service - office use may be reduced by 30% and the minimum land area requirement per unit for the remainder R5 parcel shall be reduced by 15% if the City Council approves the service- office special use. MAYOR 'ODD PAILS ®N °.Y BROOKLYN O YN CENTER CITY HALL [BROOKLYN OFFICE F 03 ui,�acaarr O THE MAYOR C ENTER T 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 O� �Oti1E`� PHONE: 569 -3300 FAX: 569 -3494 LAW OFFICE: 566 -1358 May 6, 1991 David C. Sellergren Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Northwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 Dear Dave: Thank you for your letter and phone call regarding the property owned by Norm Chazin and located on Freeway Boulevard in Brooklyn Center, I have forwarded the materials you sent me to our City Manager, Jerry Splinter, who is reviewing the situation with Ron Warren our Director of Planning and Inspections. I have been out to the site and can see it is currently serving no worthwhile purpose. It is currently my feeling that it would be in the City's best interest to find someway to develop this parcel. Please give me a call shortly upon receipt of this letter as hopefully we will have some kind of an initial response. Sincerely, Todd Paulson Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TP:PP JAMES P. LARKIN pT T ` ♦ PAUL B. PLUNKETT ROBERT L. HOFFMAN LARKi HoFF�L1iV 'T D ZLY & LINDGREN LTD. ALAN L. KILDOW JACK F. DALY > >' D. KENNETH LINDGREN KATHLEEN M. E NEW MAN BARD MICHAEL B. LE BARON "'ILL R. ANDERSON ATTO RNEYS AT LAW GREGORY KORSTAO GERALD H. FRIEDELL AMY DARK GRADY ALLAN E. MULLIGAN CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON- R OBERTJ. H ENNESSEY JEFFREY C. ANDERSON /'JAMES C. ERICKSON 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER DANIEL L. BOWLES EDWARD J. DRISCOLL GENE N. FULLER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET TODD r DAVID C. SELLERGREN TIMOTHH Y J. . M MK c MAAN NU US LISA A. GRAY RICHARD J. KEENAN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 GARY A. RENNEKE JOHN D. FULLMER THOMAS H. WEAVER ROBERT E. BOYLE TELEPHONE 1612) 83S - 3800 TELEPHONE (612) 338 - 6610 SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIOGE FRANK 1. HARVEY GARY A. VAN CLEVE CHARLES 5. ODELL FAX 1612) 896 FAX (6121 336 MICHAEL B. BRAMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN JOHN R, BEATTIE GAYLEN L. KNACK WRASE LINDA H. FISHER JULIE A. PHER CHRISTOPHER J. HAR RISTHAL THOMAS P. STOLTMAN STEVEN G. LEVIN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE SHARON C NAGA I-SREN LI MICHAEL C. JACKMAN TIMOTH J. ERN K LIT2AU JOHN E. DIEHL 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 TIMOTHY J. RII JON S. SWIERZEWSKI WILLIAM COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 THEODOR C A. F FF FFE . DALE JOHN J. THOMAS J. FLYNN AGE JAMES P. QUINN TELEPHONE (6121786-7117 DANIEL W. VOSS NMGEN TODDI,FREEMAN STEPHEN B. SOLOMON MARK R A. PETER K. BECK R ILL FAX 16121 786 -6711 JOHN R. H JEROME H. KAHNKE JAMES K. MARTIN STEVEN P. SHERRILL R. OMAN SEY J OV GERALD L. SECK THOMAS . SE SMITH JOHN B. LUNDQUIST MICHAEL L EONE TH DA LE NOLAN- RENAY THOMAS B. HUMPHREY. JR. FREDERI LEONE K. HAUSER III MARY E. MICHAEL T. MCKIM LOREN A. . SINGER ER CHARLES R. WEAVER Reply to Bloomington MERMAN L. TALLE VINCENT G. ELLA ANDREW J. MITCHELL OF COUNSEL JOHN A. COTTER. JOSEPH GITIS BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER RICHARD A. NORDBYE DAVID J. PEAT +.ALSO ADMITTED IN March 5, 1991 WISCONSIN Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 0 RE: Chazin Properties - Medical Office Building Proposal Dear Todd: Enclosed, as we discussed, is some background information regarding our clients' interest in constructing an office building on a .7 acre parcel located on Freeway Boulevard, approximately 200 west of Humboldt Avenue North. I am providing a submission letter of August 1, and a suggested text amendment letter of October 29, 1990, along with a proposed site plan, location map, and an artist's rendering of an office building owned and operated by the Chazins which is the prototype of the building they have in mind for this site. We have been looking for a way to make this vacant land productive for the City and for the Chazins. Ron Warren, Gary Shallcross and Charles LeFevere have been evenhanded in their dealings with our suggestions. It is a problem to determine how best to get this done, and yet not adversely affect the City's ability to deal with other situations. We have advanced several suggestions, which are not routine, but I think will work. I am interested, on behalf of the Chazins, in getting your response to whether our efforts to make this land productive are worthwhile. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. *Mayor Todd Paulson March 5, 1991 Page 2 Please discuss it with your staff, as necessary, and give me a call. I think both the City and Chazins are best served by figuring out a way to get this done. Since5p4y yours, David C. ellergren r LARKIN, HOFFMAN, D & LINDGREN, Ltd. DCS:GGISG cc w /encl: Alan Chazin Ronald Warren INTE I � � z � �� � _ � LINTY OF HENNEPIN r r s �4}1¢SEV4I� +NE�4�1 ;5 i r!� StlF 11 U 111['[1 ( NOrNtFQS�' [Afr1E� � f__ J' 3 onng5 Shown are assume ii. /� %• ` Ji `✓ :. 2�• "E - - -- 42 ,M` 5.' 58';?,. F _ _ _— , 2 0 5.o'41' Z9 ' 3_ 19042 3 ' - - 31 7 _ - — ;aZ•9_ — 3 - 1 9 �:f'6 4 :7 -1 �N 46.13 67.4G, 199.14 56M 3 e= b -0 ;. i0 "� Q -cn� - AV HEN U 294,99 1 144.96 a; .- . —.— ►.1' i5' -41 _.e.. I N N ft• 21 g 7 ' 9 5.0 ° - 2(rj� ": ••) _ � M� 928.92 �` P �N 463.92 445 ✓i ul If` rh V 8 . p• � W Y� y. L .. s. 330.5 N. . °E. " i10 110.65 '• �' - / ,. a� >fonr,tr lo9an Ave and ►lappet Rpod 120 :\ Ca��}arlir'¢ l N.i19 °36x1 "E'. QA ul y Si, M + -� •� <• an.5so w M N.p 2TI W. N V7 So.el 0, 0' f♦. I i . Owirq XNA1rr Nana uurwo ar,cuw.vrtrraree �ulnwn ' I I � � I -� �. ..� •� _.__ _._ I I � �'� Proposed 018oe Bull dl for -- I L - -._ ,.i' .f 'a _.__S�AI;1PProc+eriLr� > S� t•axoxn r rra,r I -- ' ante �r ■a+.o 111 I r I ' Faswrry Bhd 8 Rwribaldl M. N, i . I PU TW4 KW" 6TPT04 I 1 &owyn Canter, IAN uxea AD CIATEM 04C g AACTa TECT• AIA x; O sx I.aan w sdr Lm Site Plan Freeway Boulevard Proposed Slte Plan W SOLE r.m -e Off ice Building 9,300 s uare feet WE loci' C� ' . rbr. r... ra a.•... r. eo.eww1. @N /D 821 .� .. P, JAMES P. LARKIN ROBERT L. HOFFMAN T + RKT N, H0FF�TA_ N Ty T Y & 7 T1, DGREN, LTD. A. R TD. JOHN A. COTTER JACK F. DA LY . L21 S111V j.l l 1 iV �f 11. j.�11V lJ y�f j.� R WEILER D. KENNETH LINDGREN PAUL B. PLUNKETT G ENDELL R, ANDERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAN L. KILDOW GERALD H. FRIEDELL KATHLEEN M. PtCOTTE NEW MAN ALLAN E. MULLIGAN MICHAEL B. LE BARON ROBERTJ.HENNESSEY GREGORY E.KORSTAD JAMES C. ERICKSON AMY DARR GRADY EDWARD J. DRISCOLL 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON• GENE N. FULLER JEFFREY C. ANDERSON DAVID C.SE LLERGREN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET DANIEL L. BOWLES RICHARD J. KEENAN TODD M. VLATKOVICH JOHN D. FULLMER BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS ROBERT E. BOYLE LISA A. GRAY FRANK L HARVEY TELEPHONE 16121 835 - 3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338 - 6610 GARY A. RENNEKE CHARLES S. MODELL THOMAS H. WEAVER CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN FAX (612) 896 - 3333 FAX (612) 336 SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE JOHN R. BEAT TIE GARY A. VAN CLEVE LINDA H, FISHER MICHAEL B. BRAMAN THOMAS P. STOLTMAN GAYLEN L, KNACK STEVEN G. LEVIN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JULIE A. WRASE MICHAEL C. JACKMAN CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL JOHN E. DIE HL 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 SHARON L. BRENNA JON S, SWIERZEWSKI MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU THOMAS J. FLYNN COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 TIMOTHY J. KEANE JAMES P, QUINN WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. TODD I . FREEMAN TELEPHONE 16121 786 THEODORE A. MONDALE STEPHEN B. SOLOMON JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN PETER K, BECK FAX (612) 786 DANIEL W. VOSS JEROME H. KAHNKE MARK A. RURIK SHERRILL R. OMAN JOHN R. HILL GERALD L. SECK JAMES K. MARTIN JOHN B. LUNDQUIST STEVEN P. KATKOV DAY LE NOLAN- THOMAS J. SEYMOUR THOMAS B. HUM PHREY,JR. MICHAEL T. HUMP Reply to Bloomington CHARLES R. WEAVER HERMAN L. TALLE OF COUNSEL VINCENT G. ELLA JOSEPH GITIS ANDREW J. MITCHELL RICHARD A. NORDBYE DAVID J. PEAT * ALSO ADMITTED IN October 29, 19 9 0 WISCONSIN Charles LeFevere Brooklyn Center City Attorney 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Brooklyn Center Office Proposal Dear Charlie and Ron: After discussions with both of you, and upon further review of the Brooklyn Center zoning ordinance and zoning district map, I have a suggested text amendment approach for the Chazin proposal. It is a suggestion, not a replacement for the variance approach earlier requested by planning staff. I still believe we have made a case for meeting the variance standards. I have examined the zoning district map to identify all R5 parcels and their relationship to the combination of adjacent recreational open space and the use classification of adjacent parcels. It appears to me that the Chazin parcel is unique because it is proximate to a combination of significant open space and no other lower - density residentially zoned or used land. Thus, even if there were negatives that flowed from a reduced land requirement per unit, it would not affect other residential units, particularly homeowners. As Ron has indicated, however, there really re no negative impacts on this Y P parcel from the reduction of land per unit requirements. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAIY & LINDGI3FN, LTD. Charles LeFevere /Ronald A. Warren October 29, 1990 Page 2 Let me know what you think of the following language, to be inserted at the end of Section 35- 314,3.B.4 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance: In those situations where the service /office parcel is being subdivided from a developed R5 parcel which is within feet of acres of publically owned recreational open space and which abuts I1 and C2 zoned land for 50% or more of its perimeter, the minimum land area requirement per unit for the remainder R5 parcel shall be reduced by 15% if the City Council approves the service /office special use. In this manner, the occupants of a R5 parcel will have a place to go for green space and, at the same time, increased density is not adjacent to other lower density residential property. I do not think any other R5 parcel in Brooklyn Center qualifies under these criteria, but even if it did, theoretical off -site negative effects can not materialize. Finally, the density credit is triggered solely upon the Council's favorable exercise of discretion under special use permit standards on a case -by -case basis. Back in March, 1990, we suggested a text amendment approach which was much broader. Maybe this better addresses staff concerns. Sincerely yours David C. llergren, or LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA & LINDGREN, Ltd. DCS:FR4SG cc: Alan Chazin L JAMES P. LARKIN ROB RKT\. HoFF ~ V & ROBERT L. HOFFMAN L ♦ iA�l DALY LINDI�REN LTD JOHN ICE A. OT w E1LER JACK F, DALY LARKIN 11 1 1 V ) PAUL B. PLUNKETT D. KENNETH LINDGREN GERALD R RIEDE SON ALAN E KILL E ER GERALD H. FA ERS ATTORNEYS AT LA KATHLEEN . PICOTTE NEWMAN ALLAN E. MULLIGAN MICHAEL B. LE BARON KORSTAD AMY DARK ROBERTJ. H ENNESSEY GREGORY G C. RADY JAMES C. ERICKSON DY EDWARD J. DRISCOLL 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON• GENE N. FULLER JEFFREY C ANDERSON DAVID C. SELLERGREN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET DANIEL L. BOWLES RICHARD J. KEENAN TODD M. VLATKOVICH JOHN D. FULLMER BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS ROBERT E. BOYLE LISA A. GRAY FRANK I. HARVEY TELEPHONE 16121 835 -3800 TELEPHONE (612) 338-6610 GARY A. RENNEKE CHARLES S. MODELL THOMAS H. WEAVER CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN FAX (612) 896-3333 FAX (612) 336 -9760 SHANNON K, MCCAMBRIDGE JOHN R. BEATTIE GARY A. VAN CLEVE LINDA H. FISHER MICHAEL B. BARMAN THOMAS P. STOLTMAN GAY LEN t. KNACK STEVEN G. LEVIN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JULIE A. WRASE MICHAEL C. JACKMAN CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL JOHN E. DIEHL 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 SHARON L.BREN NA JON S. SWIERZEWSKI MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU THOMAS J. FLYNN COON RAPIDS MINNESOTA 55433 TIMOTHY J. KEANE JAMES R OUINN WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, R, TODD I. FREEMAN TELEPHONE (612) 786 - 7117 THEODORE A. MONDALE STEPHEN B. SOLOMON JOHN J. 5TEFFENHAGEN PETER K. BECK FAX (6121 786 - 6711 DANIEL W. VOSS JEROME H. KAHNKE MARK A. RURIK SHERRILL R. OMAN JOHN R, HILL GERALD L. SECK JAMES K. MARTIN JOHN B. LUNDQUIST STEVEN P. KATKOV DAYLE NOLAN- THOMAS J. SEYMOUR THOMA HUMP . EY,JR. L T MCKIM MICHAE L T. Reply to Bloomington CHARLES R. WEAVER OF COUNSEL VINCENT HERMAN L. TALLE JOSEPH GITIS J. M ITC RICHARD A. NORDBYE ANDREW J. ITCHELL DAVID J. PEAT • ALSO ADMITTED IN October 12, 1990 WISCONSIN Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Proposed Office Building North Lyn Apartment Site Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Warren: At your request, I write to confirm the continued interest of Norman and Alan Chazin in the request embodied in our letters of March 30 and August 1, 1990. Discussions continue between City staff and the applicants.. As a consequence, it is not timely to bring this matter back before either the Planning Commission or City Council. We request that the item remain continued while further analysis and discussion proceed. Sincer yours, David C. :Sellerg n, for LARKIN, HFFMAN, DALY & L �EN., t d. DCS:FQ2SG cc: Alan Chazin CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 -8 -91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: JUVENILE SMOKING AND TOBACCO USE CONTROL ORDINANCES DEPT. APPROVAL: MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM [ENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comm nts below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) At your last Council meeting Mayor Paulson reported on the availability of educational grant monies for reducing juvenile cigarette and tobacco use. These program grants are available to assist business owners in educating their employees in the need for enforcing ordinances limiting access and availability of tobacco and cigarettes to juveniles. However, before we accept this grant and education process it would make sense to include in the educational materials any new regulation the Council may want to enact. As a part of this program the Council is encouraged to look at ordinances other communities are adopting which increase regulations and penalties relating to juvenile tobacco and cigarette usage. Attached please find copies of ordinances from a number of suburban communities such as Roseville, Eagan and Falcon Heights. These ordinances cover one or more of the following areas: 1. Some of these ordinances modify the penalty section for licensees violating the ordinance. These modifications establish progressive penalties such as for violations in a twelve month period the first offense is a two day suspension, second a 30 day suspension and third revocation. 2. Sections of some these ordinances also prohibit self service sales of tobacco and cigarette merchandise. (All of these type products must be behind the counter and a clerk must give a customer access to the product) 3. There are features in these ordinances which limit the sale of tobacco products by clerks to only those clerks 18 years and older. From a staff prospective our limited research over the last two weeks indicates there are relatively few problems arising out of portions of ordinances which prohibit self service and access of tobacco products (only sales clerk access). Some communities are reconsidering their position on limiting the sale of tobacco products to sales clerks 18 years and older as it limits job availability for under 18 teenagers in quick shops and other similar retail outlets who sell cigarettes and tobacco products. The Council may also want to examine at least the structure of the progressive penalties section of some of these ordinances. While the concept of progressive penalties is a good idea the one proposed in some of these ordinances sets all the violations within any twelve month period. If for example a licensee five years running has had one violation the ordinance would not allow the Council to take more action than a two day suspension. The Council might want to give themselves more flexibility in this area to handle someone who consistently every twelve months has an ordinance violation. You may want to impose a more severe suspension than two days in such a case. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: If the Council wishes to modify existing ordinances along the lines of any or all of the proposed changes the Council should, by motion, direct the staff to prepare an ordinance with the requested features for first reading consideration. It has also been a past practice of the City Council to notify license holders of any proposed ordinance changes. i CITY OF ROSEVILLE AN ORDINANCE NO. 1093 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING PROHIBITING SALES THROUGH VENDING MACHINES, PROVIDING FOR LICENSING FOR SALES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PROCEDURES FOR REGULATING LICENSING AND REGULATING THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS. The City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: I. That effective October 1, 1991, the existing Chapter 104 of the City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and the new Chapter 104 shall read as follows: 104. Tobacco Related Products. 104.010. Sales of Tobacco Products, License Required, Application, Issuance and Revocation. No person shall keep for retail sale, sell at retail or otherwise dispose of any tobacco product as defined in this ordinance at any place in the city without a license. The application shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the building and part to be used by the applicant under the license, the kind of business conducted at such location and such other information as shall be required by the application form. 104.020. Definitions. 1. "Tobacco related product" means cigarettes, cigars, cheroots; stogies; perique; granulated, plug cut crimp cut, ready, rubbed and other smoking tobacco: snuff; snuff flower; cavendish, plug and twist tobacco; fine cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scrips, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking in a pipe, rolling paper or other tobacco related devices. 2. "Self service merchandising" means open display of tobacco products that the public has access to without the intervention of an employee. 1 3. "individually packaged" means any package containing only one individually wrapped item. Included are single packs of cigarettes, single bags of tobacco for rolling, individual cans of tobacco for chewing or sniffing. Not included are cartons containing two or more individually packaged packs of cigarettes or similar packages containing multiple cans or containers of tobacco suitable for smoking chewing or sniffing. 4- "Appeal notice" means if the City Manager suspends a license the Manager shall send to the licensee by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of the action and the right to appeal.. The aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the City Manager within ten (10) days of receiving notice of the city's action. The filing of an appeal stays the action of the City Manager in suspending or revoking a license until the City Council makes a final decision. 104.030. Tobacco Related Products - Prohibited Sales No person shall sell or give away any tobacco related product to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. No person shall sell or dispense any tobacco product through the use of a vending machine, and, it shall be unlawful for any person to offer for sale any individually packaged tobacco product by means of self - service merchandising. All sales must be made in such a manner that requires the vendee to specifically ask for the tobacco product and all other sales are unlawful. The person who sells the tobacco product must require identification if he has any reason to believe that the proposed purchaser is Less than Ig years of age. 104.040 License Revocation A licensee's license shall be revoked if the licensee, or the licensee's employee is found at a specific location to have sold tobacco related products to a person under the age of 18. For the first offense there will be a two day suspension, a second offense occurring within a twelve month period will result in a thirty day suspension and a third offense in a twelve month period will result in the license to sell tobacco products being suspended. 104.050 Procedure for License Revocation The Manager shall conduct a due process hearing on all complaints Of. selling tobacco products to those under 18 years of age. The Manager shall send a notice by certified mail not less than ten days, nor more than thirty days before the hearing. If the Manager determines that a violation has taken place after the due process hearing he shall order suspension as provided in Section 104.040. 2 o, i r-. Any licensee whose license has been suspended may appeal the suspension to the City ouncil and the City Council. may modify Y Y y Y the suspension if it determines that the licensee has attempted to comply with the ordinance in good faith. II. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Roseville this 24th day of June 1991_ Y r ATTEST: MANAGES 3 TnTAI P. n4 ORDINANCL NO. 2ND BERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 6 ENTITLED "OTHER BUSINESS REGULATIONS AND LICENSING" BY AMENDING SECTION 6.34 REGARDING TOBACCO; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 6.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code chapter 6 is hereby amended by changing Sec. 6.34 to read as follows: Subd. 1. For purpose of this ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section: A. "Tobacco Products" means cigarettes; cigars; cheroots; stoggies; perique; granulated, plug -cut, crimp -cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco; snuff; snuff flowers; Cavendish; plug and twist tobacco, fine -cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco and other kinds and forms of tobacco, prepared in such a manner as to be suitable for chewing or smoking in a pipe or other tobacco related devices; and cigarette papers and wrappers. For purposes of this section, a tobacco product includes both individually packaged items such as a pack of cigarettes or a can of chewing tobacco, and cartons containing two or more individually wrapped tobacco products. B. "Self- Service Merchandising" means open display of tobacco products that the public has access to without the intervention of an employee. C. "Vending Machine" means any mechanical, electric or electronic device, appliance or any other medium or object designated or used for vending purposes which, upon insertion of money, tokens or any other Form of payment, dispenses tobacco products. SUM 2. License Required. Any person who, directly or indirectly, keeps for retail sale, sells at retail, or otherwise disposes of any tobacco, must first obtain a license from the City. The City Council is the grantor. r1 ' r �'{ L r 1 - + ? _ U 1 0.J .J J 1 subd. 3. Conditions of License. A. Separate licenses shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business. B. The following acts or conduct on premises licensed under this ordinance are unlawful and shall be punished as provided by Section 6.99 hereof and shall be grounds for revocation or suspension of any license as provided by Subdivision 4 of this Section hereof. 1. To sell, offer for sale, give away or deliver any tobacco product to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. 2. To sell or dispense any tobacco products through the use of a vending machine. 3. To offer for sale any tobacco product by the means of a self- service merchandising. 4. To keep for sale, sell or dispose of any tobacco in any form containing opium, morphine, jusim weed, belladonna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. Subd. 4. Suspension or Revocation. A. A licensee's authority to sell cigarettes at a specific location will be suspended for thirty (30) days if licensee -is found to have acted as prohibited in Subdivision 3(13)(1) -(4) in this Section hereof. B. A six (6) month suspension shall be imposed for a second violation at the same location occurring within a twelve (12) month period. C. In the case of suspension, there shall be no license refund. D. License revocation may be instituted following a criminal conviction under this Section of any officer, director, manager, or other agent or employee of any licensee. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation and Section 6.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are s hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN City Council By: E. J. VanOverbeke By: Thomas A. Egan Its: Clerk Its: Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Ordinance published in the Legal Newspaper: TIJL- -'' 1 WED 15 P _ X31 No. __ 0-91-2 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS O R D I N A N C E Date June-19, 1991 AN ORDIKANCE AMENDING SECTION 5 -3.01 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO REGULATION OF TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS The City Council of the City of Falcon Heights ordains as follows: Section-I. Chapter 5 -3.01 of the Falcon Heights City Code is amended to read: PART 3. TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS 5 -3.01 Roc- uzation of_ Tobacco Related Products Subdivision 1, L cease Required No person shall keep for retail sale, sell at retail or otherwise dispose of any tobacco product as defined in this ordinance at any place in the city without a license issued hereunder. Application for a license should be made to the City Clerk on a form supplied by the City. Upon filing of the application and payment of the required fee as stipulated in Section 5-14.01 of this code, the application shall be presented to the City Council for consideration. Subdivision 2. Definitions A. "Tobacco related product" means cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, stogies, perique, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready, rubbed and other smoking tobacco; snuff, snuff flower, Cavendish, plug and twist tobacco; fine cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts, refuse scrips, clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing, or smoking in a pipe, rolling paper or other tobacco related devices. S. "Self service merchandising" means open display of tobacco products that the public has access to without the intervention of an employee. C. "Individually packaged" means any package containing only one individually wrapped item. Included are single packs of cigarettes, single bags of tobacco for rolling, individual cans of tobacco for chewing or sniffing. Not packaged packs of cigarettes or similar packages containing multiple cans or containers of tobacco suitable for smoking, chewing or sniffing. Subdivision 3. I,i.cense Shall be Displayed Every such license shall be kept conspicuously posted about the place for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any person upon request. Subdivision 4. Restrictions No license shall be issued to any applicant for the sale of tobacco related products at any place other than her /his established place of business. No license shall be issued for the sale of tobacco related products at a movable place of business; nor shall any license be issued for the sale of tobaco related products at more than one place of business. Subdivision 5. Tobacco Related Products - Prohibited Sales No person shall sell or give away any tobacco related product to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. No person shall sell or dispense any tobacco product through the use of a vending machine; and, it shall be unlawful for any person to offer for sale any individually packaged tobacco product by means of self service merchandising. Subdivision 6. Revocation Every such license may be revoked by the council for a violation of any provision of this section if the licensee has been given a reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. Section z. This ordinance passed this 19th day of June, 1991 shall become effective January 1, 1992. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Moved by Wallin Approved by T 4 _..... Mayor June 19, 1991 Date YEAS NAYS BALDWIN CIERNIA Attested GEHRZ 5 In favor C'ty clerk WALLIN JACOBS Q_ Against June 19, 1991 Date Adopted by Council. June 19, 1991 M `!' .s+o4'�^F+• •L - -• ; L•aP.e'.'.. -if.+P t. Fl! ar^ T+ YFNIJ-. NMW. vtif1$. t•+•: a. F+ QACi: [i.L:^- 1.aNaiY.fl+wEMrsaa..,. .., . _... ... ...... o.u. ,.�r<ana. v.v.- M-0.W.1tLYMKfe ..sue. Post -It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #otpaco ► T Fr , a � Dept. ; � Phon U _ r .Tl > Fax 0 / 7 y.►^ Section 23 -013. SUPREMACY CLAUSE Any conflict between the Sections 23- 001 through 23 -012 and other provisions of the ordinance shall be resolved in favor of Sections 23 -001 -- 23 -012 of this chapter. � CIGARETTES CITY OF 13ROOKLYN CENT 1 x Section 23 -101 LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of any device keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispose of any cigarette or cigarette wrapper at any place in the City of Brooklyn Center unless a license therefor shall first have been obtained as provided in this ordinance. a Section 23 -102 APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE. Application for such license shall be made to the City Clerk on a form supplied by the City. Such application shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the building and the part intended to be used by the applicant under such license, the kind of business conducted at such location, and such other information as shall be required by the application form. Upon the filing of such application with the Clerk, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration, and if granted by the Council, a license shall be issued by the City Clerk upon the payment of the required fee. Section 23 -103 LICENSE FEE. The fee for every such license shall be as set forth by City Council resolution. Every such license shall expire on December 31 next after its issuance. "A fee for the renewal of any license issued under this ordinance shall be paid to the City Clerk prior to the first day of January of the year for which said license fee is required, and in the event that said payment is made after said date, the license fee established by this ordinance shall be increased ten percent (10 %) for each month or portion thereof which has elapsed since said date." Section 23 -104. LICENSE SHALL BE DISPLAYED. Every such license shall be kept conspicuously posted about the place for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any person upon request. Section 23 -105. RESTRICTIONS. No license shall be issued except to a person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for sale of cigarettes at any place other than his established place of business. No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a movable place of business; nor shall any one license be issued for the sale of cigarettes at more than one place of business or applicant. No person shall sell or dispense any cigarettes or tobacco product, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper through the use of a vending machine. No person shall sell or give any cigarette, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper to any person below the age of 18 years. No person shall keep for sale, sell or dispose of any cigarette containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, belladonna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. Section 23 -106. REVOCATION. Every such license may be revoked by the Council for a violation of any provision of this ordinance if the licensee has been given a reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. Section 23 -107. PENALTY. Any person who shall violate any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700) or imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 -8 -91 Agenda Item Number r7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ALGAE TREATMENT DEPT. APPROVAL: Patricia A. Page, Deputy Ciq6ZIerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIkIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMLA -RY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • On June 10, 1991, the Brooklyn Center City Council authorized the expenditure of funds from the contingency fund for algae treatments on Upper Twin Lake. Staff has received two quotes for this service and is recommending award to Lake Restoration, Inc. Three treatments are allowed by the DNR per season. The total cost of three treatments plus the permit fee should not exceed $2,000. Attached is a resolution transferring $2,000 from the Contingency fund to the Parks Maintenance fund for these treatments. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution Q� and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AWARDING &ONTRACT FO,R ALGAE TREATMENT WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 1991, the Brooklyn Center City Council did authorize the expenditure of funds from the contingency fund for algae treatments on Upper Twin Lake; and WHEREAS, two quotes were received for this treatment as follows: COMPANY OUO Lake Restoration $624.00 per treatment Midwest Aqua Care $995.00 per treatment WHEREAS, the contract is hereby awarded to Lake Restoration, Inc. for a maximum of three treatments in 1991; and WHEREAS, the total cost of three treatments and the permit fee is not to exceed $2,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1991 General Fund Budget as follows: Increase the appropriations for the following line items: Parks Maintenance, Dept. 69 01- 4420 - 419 -69 $2,000 Decrease the appropriations for the following line items: Unallocated Departmental Expenses 01 -4995- 440 -80 $2,000 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adop tion of the foregoing resolution was du n o e oin �. 1 P g g Y 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 7 -8 -91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JOHN VOGEL ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Ge alyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEWlRECOlVIlVIENDATION: I No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Brooklyn Center's Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council advisory commission member John Vogel has moved out of Brooklyn Center and therefore is no longer eligible to represent the City on the commission. Attached is a resolution recognizing Mr. Vogel's service on behalf of the Cit If you know anyone who might be interested in filling the vacancy created by Mr. Vogel's departure, please have them call Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of John Vogel / o�h Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JOHN VOGEL WHEREAS, John Vogel served on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council advisory commission from February 26, 1990, to May 31, 1991; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of John Vogel is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING ALIGNMENT /GEOMETRIC LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy,enapp, Dfrktor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On June 24, 1991 the City Council conducted a public informational hearing regarding the proposed alignment and geometric layout plan for the 69th Avenue improvement. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Council members expressed a tentative consensus regarding various elements of that plan and requested staff to prepare a resolution formalizing that consensus, and to submit comments regarding the engineering and operational implications of the Council's tentative selections. The Administrative Traffic Committee (ATC) has reviewed the Council's "consensus plan" and offers the following comments: 1. Regarding proposed cul -de -sac on June Avenue ATC Comments • This would improve the "parkway" appearance of 69th Avenue and the safety of pedestrian and cyclists using the proposed trailway. • By closing this street, some additional traffic is routed to other streets (see SEH's 6/28/91 letter, reports and sketches attached). • Installation of this cul -de -sac will impact the purchase costs for the property between June Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. • Operationally, this proposal by itself, causes no serious new problems. 2. Regarding proposed cul -de -sac on Indiana Avenue ( see "Alternate 1" sketch attached) ATC Comments • This would improve the "parkway" appearance of 69th Avenue and the safety of pedestrian and cyclists using the proposed trailway. • By closing this street in addition to June Avenue, a substantial amount of traffic is routed to other streets (see SEH's 6/28/91 letter, reports, and sketches attached). It is the opinion of the ATC that closure of both of these streets would create serious operational problems on Sundays - requiring the Y q g use of manual traffic direction (probably a 5- person crew during the peak hours between the 10:00 and 11:30 church services each Sunday and for other special church holidays and other activities. • If the Council decides that both June and Indiana should be closed, an alternate plan, to construct a "connector" road between these two streets in lieu of two cul -de -sacs (see "Alternate 2" plan attached) is suggested for consideration. This alternate would cause fewer operation and maintenance problems, and allow better screening of the immediately adjacent houses. • Another alternate which has been suggested is to allow a one -way southbound connection to 69th Avenue from Indiana while prohibiting right turns from 69th Avenue (see Alternate 3 attached). With this plan, the traffic impacts on other streets would be somewhere between the "proposed" and the "Indiana cul -de -sac" forecasts shown on the attached sketches. Some manual traffic direction may still be required. With this alternate, staff is concerned about probable violations of the "No Right Turn" restrictions at 69th Avenue (it is similar to the problem which existed on Shingle Creek Parkway at the T. Wright's entrance before the reconstruction in 1989). 3. Regarding Installation of All -Way Stop signs at each intersection on 70th Avenue ATC Comments • The primary purpose of this suggestion is to discourage short - cutting traffic. • When the 69th Avenue improvement is completed it will be easier and faster to stay on 69th Avenue, thereby eliminating most or all of the problem. • • Installation of numerous Stop signs is not recommended as a cure for speeding traffic. It usually has more adverse effects. • The ATC plans to monitor possible problems during construction and take whatever temporary actions are necessary. 4. Regarding development of a new connection to Brooklyn Boulevard from St. Alphonsus area via the office park area. ATC Comments • This would improve access to and from St. Al's from the northwest, but would not serve to accommodate the "southwest" traffic which now uses Indiana and June Avenues. • There are many implications to this proposal, which should be considered in detail before marking any commitments. 5. Regarding installation of traffic signals at two locations, i.e. - at the Brooklyn Boulevard /70th Avenue intersection, and at the 69th Avenue /Halifax Avenue intersection ATC Comments • The purpose of these signals would be primarily to accommodate the Sunday traffic to /from the St. Alphonsus church. • Weekday traffic volumes at these intersections don't come close to meeting warrants for the installation of traffic signals; and State and Federal standards prohibit the installation of signals for use on a part -time basis. • The cost of signals is estimated at $90- 100,000 per intersection. 6. Regarding the Council's consensus relating to the geometric design at the Halifax, Crimes, France, Ewing and Drew Avenue intersections. ATC Comments The ATC concurs in the Council's recommendations to approve this portion of the geometric layout as shown on the plans dated June 17, 1991 (i.e. - those which were used for the purpose of the informational hearing). 7. Regarding trail alignment on north side of 69th Avenue between France Avenue and West Palmer Lake Drive. ATC Comments The ATC concurs in the Council's recommendation to meander the trail within the construction limits. • 8. Regarding traffic short - cutting via West Palmer Lake Drive and speeding problems on that street. ATC Comments • Any short - cutting which now occurs is primarily due to the 4 -way Stop at France Avenue, with no dedicated right -turn lane. • A temporary right -turn lane will be built at France Avenue this summer to alleviate this problem in 1991 and during construction in 1992. • The proposed roadway improvement of 69th will make it easier and faster to stay on 69th to France than to shortcut through the neighborhood. • The Police Department will conduct speed surveys on West Palmer lake Drive. Then, the ATC will consider what actions may be necessary (i.e. - enforcement, signage, etc.). RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • Review and discussion of the ATC's recommendations. • A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • Note As presented, the resolution approves the consensus expressed by the Council at the 6/24/91 meeting. (The two changes listed in the resolution are the only two items where the Council's consensus differed from the plan layouts dated 6/17/91.) If, after discussion, the Council wishes to change its decision regarding any item, the resolution should be amended accordingly. Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ALIGNMENT /GEOMETRIC LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, on March 26, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -66, ordering the reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -139 approving a contract with SEH Inc. to provide professional services relating to Stage 1 of Final Plan Development; and WHEREAS, SEH Inc. has prepared and presented a proposed alignment and geometric layout plan dated June 17, 1991 and said plan represents the culmination of plan development efforts by the consultant, City staff and the City Council and consideration of public input received at four public informational meetings conducted by staff and a public informational meeting conducted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that said plan should be approved, to serve as a basis for the consultant to complete the development of Stage 1 of final plans and cost estimates and to provide direction for the implementation of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The alignment /geometric layout plans dated June 17, 1991 as prepared by SEH Inc. are hereby approved as a basis for proceeding with Stage 2 of final plan development and project implementation, subject to the following changes: a. Construction of a cul -de -sac on Indiana Avenue, north of 69th Avenue. b. The location of the trail on the north side of 69th Avenue between France Avenue and West Palmer Lake Drive shall be designed to provide a curvilinear alignment generally within the construction limits. 2. In conjunction with Stage 2 of plan development and project implementation, the following process shall be used to develop the most effective plan for landscaping, security fencing and noise abatement: RESOLUTION N0, Step 1 - As a part of the general construction contract earth berms will be constructed at the locations where they will be effective in providing noise abatement and will not require the removal of a large number of mature trees. Step 2 - Upon completion of the general construction contract a series of meeting will be conducted with adjoining property owners on both sides of 69th Avenue to review available options, including fencing (various types), plantings, property extensions, etc. Step 3 - A plan will then be developed to accommodate property owners' requests to the maximum feasible extent. Step 4 - A separate contract will then be awarded for landscaping and other construction according to that plan. 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. ID 0 0 sui�ser iurar+c> \� i j I , 2 7 •; i 3 urcl 2 I �j �, � \ \� �i � I' <.: 7 1•: .; ;3i�:�i • e la ° I ° = 1 r • i � � 1K49f _... ` I I � G I � ?° • 'I.o�se � w0� ` �. � : �K.�;i::::' r ��! �.. o _...... ... —_. _._ —.. .._.._. �._" V 1.4�.. W , ' OLi dLC.ISP_ — piI SkN C .. _ o 0 o - - - -- tktk �a /C _..^.._.. .. nl.c. x�e L lIMT9 GROUP HEALTH PLAN � A10f37L secnoel ��' SECCkiD ADDITION ° Io. NORT TOWN / 1 - -- -- - - - - -- 1 1 \\ lea `FIRYSLER REAL \ Is PLANTHO AREA - -►; ro,a� E705TW0 GROUND d d 111 +00 �.a.sr rruh wrr yr rr• ... iMw .r nr r BROOKLYN CENTER 69TH AVENUE MINNESOTA �,< LANE,•• F3060 ORIER•S 3RD ADD. - N ie er ■ 0 p p0 bRQQKIYN c ei� f3 .— FIIIHNIIR T ADD. PALMER LAKE tTEECE 4TH ADD. ^� i - ;. ol 1 *t _. ,.. ....... ,;.;........•::•:•:.;:: ' ` :: � � i�1F�•�gi gk'�::Y4sf • .. • • PROPOSED Y /JI _. z .• .. —_ d. __. _. - _ • it X r •�) ,t :.1 . s.r w w it .. TY l __.,–�4:. __ .3:L'L• _. ,� `48aS_ •• - 7 {f pN `I -- C7 � •� �` ~k � �• � ::•.:kk � a•� -- ltoi�i —__ — ,�• Cj \ ` �/ , if •WW2 ( �N�UY _ __ n __.._ V ( 6•.a }IrJ IIWLS SE� 11(M1 EFL01Y �MW 'am Q\ 1 CHtl SLER REALTY y ?>� T WEST EW '— a nw»fo afu lit n EIOSTWO tl TRAIL d IQ1ND Y . � u A � nswo AV -- — M4•� M w,ei..b,. LrywNr W. wr Yw N Y•• Rlf IIQ BRQOICLYN CENTER 002" Z w s. wic fcvxw, fRL aoa�� MUJNESOTA GOTH AVENUE -- eM Dl. _..._. w» n. _19p�a :uwrewmMa.rtc.nnww.es M� 6 D m m . PALMER LAKE TERRACE tE,� N LMt � ea 3 _ AKE RACE r en t g . BE" 3RD ADo, P � ff � .... i - .. ....... . .. .... ...... ... .... .• .•..•.• .,., .... ...:MEDIAN • i f , 1 am-ml Milo I N60 Q ;.;.;F.....,;y._. T r� - -_ .ii a %iic ?c;?rp,._•:x —IZ -x —rx -.{ x - ._�*�r�.� =it..i CONSTRUCTION # .. `\• ` .t -� `�•' Luis i \ , M I � ! — i , Fd '' ND 2 � MOl1tYI m x CoAc i a ce" -1 sg gcnaN e ow �\)� ± ( I 1 7 mu \ ` WEST MEW , AMDAHL A E ISRN0 0oloum t0' PLANIR/0 AREA O' SECTION • A • E7057M0 maIND to' 2e' ALIEANAR' SECMON • A • 10' 10' 2!' IV LEFT — — WOUW -- - - - - -- LANE L EAVING Y 1 I SECS •e- i1H00 nA ism epw,•. � � u,,.... ur. w 4w M q. BROOKLYN CENTER , 0277 � 89TH AVENUE Dom, �.R �, ..w. MINNESOTA WR y AMEN IIR R MR RLMf(M� fRll 0[aul CNEb® Oo(� .— �– Ib ..S�EL .,...�___�._. .—.�. e ' co wo AUAER LAKE \ 26 e S4 CONSTRUCTION ftow LIMITS � NOTES TREE PLANT04 AREAS TO _ --••• �► ` BE DETERMINED N MS 7 CONSTRUCIION LIMITS J�, ?f� ' ` 4 �J � �`' ^�l , •G , ;r. b '..,� �~ PROPOSED MEDIAN WoSCAVNO - b i t ' , l t �� } I t�a�l , � '�. -,.. - _y!.!P18 . -E>T.. �'. ( _" JlllJl �:.n„�..aoy "� �. - EARLE BROWN FARM . �- - - ---. �- t , �" � Imo TOWNHOUSES •.,•.. P LANTI G TREE PLANTING AREA 13L RDADNAT' TRAM _ E)ESINO GROUND — -- ----------------------- - - -- 7- -- 142100 BROOKLYN CENTER '� "o 'u 4 MINNESOTA GOTH AVENUE wa as tr w1t rcvaaat 11°1 De1G11 °Rotor ow17.L - y. 1d41L. awrmu�+�wlrcranwy�.s p C)y� 4Crt b 0 o ao P \\ riUCi D vnarogn AN unoscwsw t r 7''� HOM TREE rwrnwo Sari TO WE Dciwa+m IN n+ts AREA 0 o��Pg�1 j � EPA � BROOKLYN CENTER 9 ■u 5 W mow m l oouY am® oe. _mss! w. �4 t_ -, MINNESOTA e9TH AVENUE aomc�.aon[cYSn.w+tn � 6 5, 7/91 ENGINEERS N ARCHITECTS N PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, - E VE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 672 490 2000 June 28, 1991 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 69TH AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDIES SEH FILE NO 90277 Mr. Sy Knapp Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Sy: Attached are two reports relating to traffic studies on 69th Avenue as it relates to local street traffic. The first report addresses the existing and proposed traffic volumes under several scenarios including the initial proposed alternative and the modification to cul -de -sac Indiana Avenue. Two drawings are included which show the volumes on June Avenue, Indiana Avenue and Halifax Avenue on both weekdays and Sundays. Additional information regarding different alternatives, street volumes and assumptions are not included in the report but are available in our office. The second report addresses the short cutting traffic issue which has been raised at several public meetings. Basically, we feel that the improvements to 69th Avenue and the cul- de- sacing of June Avenue will significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the short cutting. If you need any additional information or have any questions regarding either of the reports, please feel free to call. We are available to present these to the Council on Monday, July 8. Sincerely, r'� f trA+� ���Clvb�te/Z1 t rni� Glen Van Wormer, P.E. Manager, GVW /cmb Transportation Department Attachments SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHI PPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LOCAL STREETS As part of the traffic study for 69th Avenue, traffic counts were made on several intersecting streets on both weekdays and weekends. This information would later permit evaluation of alternatives in terms of traffic volume changes on various streets. A number of calculations were made and utilized in the evaluation process which helped refine the alternatives and lead to determination of the preferred alternative. At public information meetings, projected traffic volumes resulting from the street access changes made as part of the preferred alternative were presented. The preferred alternative indicated medians being closed at June Avenue, Indiana Avenue, Grimes Avenue and Ewing Avenue. It also included the construction of a cul -de -sac on June Avenue so that there is no access directly to 69th Avenue. Volumes have also been calculated for modifying the initial preferred alternative by also adding a cul -de -sac on Indiana Avenue north of 69th Avenue. The attached copies of aerial photographs have volume information marked on them for "current ", "proposed" and "Indiana cul -de -sac" scenarios. Current means the actual 1990 or 1991 traffic counts. Proposed means the initial proposed alternative which includes a cul -de -sac only at June Avenue. The Indiana Avenue cul -de -sac alternative modifies the initial preferred alternative by adding the Indiana Avenue cul -de -sac. As can be seen, the weekday daily volume on June Avenue immediately north of 69th Avenue obviously goes from an existing 183 to 0. Halifax Avenue, which receives a portion of the diverted traffic, increases from 1,455 currently to 1,926 vehicles per day. - 1 - Sunday traffic volumes are also shown on a separate aerial photograph. The Sunday volumes are influenced primarily by access to St. Alphonsus Church. Thus, volumes on June Avenue and Indiana Avenue are higher on Sunday than on a weekday. The increase on Halifax Avenue as a result of the two cul -de -sacs is also higher on Sundays than weekdays. Church traffic volumes on Sunday are also much more concentrated than volumes during the week. Most of the additional traffic on Halifax Avenue will occur before or after masses at St. Alphonsus. Peak hour volumes on Halifax Avenue are as high as 90 cars per hour northbound and 50 cars per hour southbound before or after specific masses. Highest hourly volumes on Indiana Avenue, are 125 vehicles between 9 and 10 A.M. and on June Avenue are 67 vehicles between 11 A.M. and 12 noon. We anticipate that the diversion during the 9 to 10 A.M. period will add approximately 75 vehicles during that peak hour to Halifax Avenue. We also anticipate that traffic volumes will divert to both 70th Avenue at Brooklyn Boulevard and 71st Avenue at France Avenue. The initial. preferred alternative added approximately 160 vehicles to 70th Avenue and the cul -de -sac at Indiana Avenue will add another 80 vehicles. On Sundays, the additional traffic is approximately 360 vehicles with 160 resulting from the Indiana Avenue cul -de -sac. While the northbound to eastbound right turn from Brooklyn Boulevard to 70th Avenue can be made easily, the westbound left turn will see some delays, especially weekday peak hours or Sunday during heavy outbound church traffic. As traffic is diverted to alternate streets, operations at other intersections and even in the St. Alphonsus Church parking lots should be reviewed. As an example, the cul -de -sac construction on June Avenue will divert local traffic to other streets, but probably without incident because of the low peak hour weekday 2 - volumes. On Sunday, however, the concentration of traffic is much higher resulting in a concentration of traffic at intersections along 70th Avenue. With June Avenue closed at 69th Avenue, more St. Alphonsus traffic will travel directly down Indiana Avenue to make a right turn to go west on 69th Avenue. We feel that this traffic will somewhat sort itself out by parking location within the St. Alphonsus lots. If Indiana Avenue is also cul- de -saced at 69th Avenue, then more traffic will be forced to utilize the Halifax Avenue and 70th Avenue intersection. We anticipate that there will be some delays at the intersection and that potentially more traffic will cut back through the south parking lot past the St. Alphonsus Church entrance. This movement may be compounded by the tendency of drivers at a T- intersection, such as Halifax Avenue and 70th Avenue, to allow traffic across the top of the "T" to have the right -of -way. In summary, weekday redistribution of traffic with median closures and cul -de -sacs does not appear to place an extreme additional burden of traffic on any street. Halifax Avenue is pushed close to 2,000 vehicles per day which is heavy for a local residential street but not for a local collector street. Of greater concern is the Sunday redistribution of traffic because of the peak characteristics of church arrival and dismissal times, and the operations adjacent to the church. 3 - TRAFFIC STUDY 69TH AVENUE AT BROOKLYN BOULEVARD LOCAL TRAFFIC DIVERSION As a part of the study of 69th Avenue, it was noted that traffic often uses local streets to bypass the intersection at Brooklyn Boulevard. The most predominant observed movement is traffic which will travel north on June Avenue to 70th Avenue and back to Brooklyn Boulevard. This traffic seeks to bypass backed up westbound traffic in the right lane. Observations have shown that this movement is somewhat alleviated when familiar traffic attempts to move to the left to provide a right turn lane. Whenever the lane is not available, some traffic has a tendency to short cut up June Avenue. The improvements to 69th Avenue will involve widening to provide (westbound) a left turn lane, a through lane and a third lane designated for right turns only. With this lane arrangement, traffic which wishes to turn north on Brooklyn Boulevard will be able to travel directly to the intersection and be delayed only by other right turning traffic. The right turn on red can be made easily during the southbound Brooklyn Boulevard left turn signal phase and potentially with the eastbound left turn signal phase. Thus, most traffic will find it much quicker at virtually any time to continue on 69th Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard. June Avenue is going to be cul -de -saced under the proposed alternative. With June Avenue cul- de- saced, traffic must make a decision prior to Indiana Avenue whether to turn right on Indiana Avenue or continue straight to the Brooklyn Boulevard intersection. Currently, traffic makes its decision based on the backup from Brooklyn Boulevard. It is felt that the backup will be less observable to traffic between Halifax Avenue and Indiana Avenue and that most traffic will continue past both Halifax Avenue and Indiana Avenue to the intersection without diverting. - 1 - f ,. s h . fv x ^. r F 4r d�.. ,' <...,.,.. .,. - --'2'.: , ".. ,£ _ . r .•¢r«. -..- :.,; x -.� ,�� ;.�, ��.. , �i .� ,. -� .:, . � _.. -SIC . � a - " " WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 'CURRENT ACTUAL 1990 TRAFFIC COU F , 2. 'PROPOSED' INCLUDES MEDIAN CLOSURE AT t� A CND GRIMES AND UN� INDIAN AT JUNE CUL-DE-SAC _ :r "INDIANA CUL -DE -SAC' ADDS THE CUL -DE -SAC AT INDIANA AVENUE nY r i F , ... � .�ry0. ✓ ..r'. . ge+ `,, w ,:: ^ -.'.:. . '1 � yy,�.. A4K. ... > -.. 70th AVENUE e - . h t. Y , , a r oir " Y .. . . , a, - y � " a N t .a I � uP� � E w � u JUNE AVE s r - Q _. - - CURRENT J r ; �� PROPOSED I j HALIFAX AVENUE INDIANA CUL - Y . , DE —SAC INDIANA AVENUE PROPOSED �`� CURRENT 1455 v 19 1 - � t, s L- CURRENT 377 "INDIANA CU 223 -SAC PROPOSED CUL- . � s INDIANA r� DE -SAC o , I a R 69th AVENUE �, .. � � h , : -. r 1 �� 11��f -. -. s R i r T V O LU MES r Y >� - SUNDAY TRAFFIC V OLU 'CURRENT' = ACTUAL 1991 TRAFFIC CO UNTS UD MEDIAN CLOSURE AT PROPOSED ING� ES JUNE, INDIANA AND GRIMES AND ;: y -D N_,� -r. CUL-DE-SAC AT JUNE �` -- 'INDIANA CUL -DE -SAC' ADDS THE CUL -DE -SAC AT INDIANA AVENUE tn - W a A� AVE NUE WIN 4` , , - C I �s I = 4 r f x x ,r , r r. r� F' 3.i s _ _ ; rt. i .. " -'•' ". r � :,+,.. �: r � pY i' ::..� s „�.., i„ .. °'` .:.� _. ,: ,. .• .d. ` °sue , .:. m, a. '�a� q i I , a:,,.. � .• _ , "' ,:: '_` .-g ;., `.�": .. " ,.. r.:. ,. .. -. "'C a� `•7�6 „ I U ..s r '+r 1 AVENUE , i, CURRENT 41 } INDIANA AVENUE " � yrm d PROPOSED 0 L , • ,�,� �. °��-. - -� ` , _ - .. CURRENT ` - 0 INDIANA CUL. s�,; 543 ¢�, # . y s � e- 449 '` �. � .•y ° PROPOSED DE -SAC. HALIFAX AVENUE -' - INDIANA CUL- ,.:w• C = NT 1016 M DE SAC 0 PROPOSED _ 1�2 INDIANA CUL- ., 5 DE -SAC r.. t � m t — 69th AVENUE Y „ ,. „mss- t5F'p, . p. • , z ° k „ 5 v f, r d. P a ICI . I � l i : «; "c`°• a. "e`.:W4 _... d_ �+ kit �:+ w'` ° `,�a;. ".? r � ! . � }7 z _ .q 9 a v I. ,....` w_ 00 NMI AT— v V " t ,x ra > r F .:::. _ ..._ . r ... , ,w� °�#, 'S 'ale. ..: � .�_ _ �R Y'!' "�`:'.. : ' �a �' Win. k: "' . . •. �,. ° ' eo °fie °O M •i � f }} 111 f ••f j .,............ ..../C. JEFF .� N [V VNVIONI �r fl •y pC I � W ..e :::::: ::::: cp i L " , P ��o w ••`..• •.,.• °•.;n '+°. ,rte ; < g \ 1 Vie• : °� :;: : °:° {' °•: °;:; °off:;•, °, °,.•. r ..... . G r G Iq UWTS SEE SECTION BELOIM [ ? ALTERNATE NO 2 'N 3AV Y M a . . ., KJ ..... : *. ..::.. yea O Q - env 3 r�i.',� - • ,.. �,,, . �" xT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8 /9I Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REMODELING OF PARK SHELTER BUILDING AT TWIN LAKE BEACH DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Direct of Pu lic Works:- - MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION- No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • In the attached memo Chief Lindsay explains the need to provide a place to store the specialized equipment (ATV, water ski bike, boat, etc.) which the Police Department uses to patrol the Twin Lakes area, and recommends that the park shelter building at Twin Lake Beach be remodeled to provide that storage. As noted in his memo, the costs for the proposed remodeling will include: Installation of overhead door $2,275.00 Install new beam above door (if old beam is inadequate) 570.00 Natural gas service line 600.00 Contingency, misc. items* 800.00 Estimated total cost range $2,875.00 to $4,245.00 * Note : Staff has agreed that it will not be necessary to construct any new partitions. However, additional costs may be incurred to reactivate plumbing and electrical systems which have not been used for several years. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION If the Council wishes to approve this improvement, a resolution is provided to amend the 1991 General Fund budget to appropriate the necessary funds from the Contingency fund and authorize the City Manager to proceed with the improvement. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING REMODELING OF PARK SHELTER BUILDING AT TWIN LAKE BEACH WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has determined that there is a need for storage space for specialized equipment used by the Police Department to patrol the Twin Lakes area; and WHEREAS, the Director of Recreation has obtained price quotations for remodeling the park shelter building at Twin Lake Beach Park to accommodate the Police Department's storage needs; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The 1991 General Fund budget be amended as follows: Increase the Appropriation for the following line items Park Maintenance - No. 69, Object No. 4520 $4,245.00 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $4,245.00 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to proceed with this improvement. 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: �ooK�YN C��'rF POLICE DEPARTMENT M EMORANDUM POLICE TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: May 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Remodeling Twin Lake Park Shelter Building For Use by Twin Lake Joint Power Organization Communities The Twin Lake Joint Power Organization representing Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Center was formed early this year. The original purpose was to patrol the three lakes during the winter time. The concept has now been expanded to consider patrolling the lakes during the summer months. This past winter the lakes were patrolled using the police department's A.T.V. We attempted to store the vehicle at the Twin Lake Park shelter building. The doors were not wide enough to allow entry of the vehicle into the building. We did keep auxiliary equipment in the building including snowmobile suits, helmets, overshoes, et cetera. The vehicle was kept at a private residence, secured in a garage. Arnie Mavis has obtained cost estimates to add an overhead garage door to the building to allow access of vehicles and a boat for storage. He also obtained costs to bring natural gas lines onto the property to the building. The building has a furnace, although bottled gas was used in the past. Both of the items should be one -time costs. The natural gas for running the furnace would be a recurring cost. Memo to Splinter and Knapp Page 2 May 3, 1991 We discussed at the time erecting a wall inside the park building that would cordon off a space that could be used exclusively by the enforcement people for writing reports, tags, and so forth. Mavis has indicated he had forgotten to have the wall included in the estimate. We already have a three -seat water ski bike donated to the Joint Powers communities for use during the summer months on Twin Lake. This unit was provided by the Kawasaki Company at no cost to us. We understand this could be provided annually. y The Joint Powers Organization anticipates having a limited summertime water patrol during the summer of 1991. During this time, research and P lanning will be done for the purpose of developing an all - volunteer water patrol along the lines of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol Unit. If it is determined to establish the water patrol unit, the target date for becoming operational will be June of 1992. The Twin Lakeshore Owners Association is considering a fund - raiser to finance the purchase of a boat and motor. There has also been some preliminary discussion with the Lions Clubs of the three communities to help in the funding of the boat, motor and auxiliary equipment. The connection of the furnace and installation of the overhead garage door will be needed regardless of the summertime operation. We would expect to have the water ski bike delivered by the end of May. We do not believe the unit will fit through the service door at the shelter building the way it is without the improvements. It would then be required to store the water ski bike at a private residence again. This really is not desirable as it is a great inconvenience anytime we would use the unit. I would appreciate whatever consideration can be given to the remodeling of the park building. Attached you will find an estimate from Brandvold Builders. Mavis also indicated Minnegasco has estimated a cost of $600 for running the natural gas to the building. As stated above, there is no estimate for walling off one office area. RA DVOLD BUILDERS 5 351 -i — 011!!6 Colfax Ave. N. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 560 -8263 Date 11ar.6,1991. To Richard Schwab 6301 Shingle Creek Parkwav Brooklyn Center, 14n. 55430 Description Amount Install one (1) 9' x7' flush overhead Qarage door with one (1) gara`e door operator and two (2) remote controls. Patch both ends and patch concrete floor, redo wood siding around new uarage door (no painting and no electrical). All labor and material $2275.00 If old concrete beam above door is not strong enough it will have to be removed and replaced with two 10" micre lam beams at an additional cost of - 570.00 Total CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 /8 /9I Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF HOUSES ON 69TH AVENUE NORTH, PHASE III, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -14 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Si for of u lic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 1 : 0 4 : � No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached . On April 8, 1991, the City Council approved specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for the removal of the remaining structures within the 69th Ave. No. corridor. Phase III of the project contemplates the removal of six bid items (5 houses and 1 garage). The bid items and addresses for Phase III are as follows: Bid Item No. Address 1 3612 - 69th Ave. No. 2 3618 - 69th Ave. No. 3 3720 - 69th Ave. No. 4a 4014 - 69th Ave. No. (house) 4b 4014 - 69th Ave. No. (garage) 5 6901 Indiana Ave. No. Bids for these items were received and opened on July 3, 1991. Five house moving /demolition companies submitted bids for the work (see attached Resolution). The following is a summary of the bid results and staff recommendations: Item No. 1 Ernst Machinery & Housemovers Corporation submitted the highest offer for the purchase of the structure; $ 6,154.00. Recommendation: Acceptance of the high offer and award of Bid Item No. 1 to Ernst. Item No. 2 Ernst Machinery & Housemovers Corporation submitted the highest offer for the purchase of the structure; $ 5,749.00. Recommendation: Acceptance of the high offer and award of Bid Item No. 2 to Ernst. Item No. 3 William Otting, dba Otting House Movers, submitted an offer of $ 100.00 for the purchase of the structure. Four other bidders submitted proposed costs to the City (demolition) between $ 5,850 and $ 6,693. Recommendation: Staff recommends rejecting all bids submitted for Bid Item No. 3. The EDA had expressed an interest in the structure, as a possible candidate for a site in Brooklyn Center. If it is not feasible to contract with the EDA, the structure could be included in Phase IV and new bids would then be considered. Item No. 4a • Three bidders submitted demolition bids, the lowest being that of Semple Building Movers, Inc. for (a cost to the City of) $ 6,880. Recommendation: Acceptance of the low bid and award of Bid Item No. 4a to Semple. Item No. 4b Two bidders expressed interest; Semple offered $ 558.00, and Doty & Sons, Inc. submitted a cost of $ 800.00. Recommendation: Acceptance of the offer and award of Bid Item No. 4b to Semple. Item No. 5 Three bidders submitted demolition bids, the lowest being that of Semple Building Movers, Inc. for (a cost to the City) of $ 5,300. Recommendation: Acceptance of the low bid and award of Bid Item No. 5 to Semple. • Both Ernst and Semple have satisfactorily performed work as part of the previous house removal projects in the 69th Ave. No. corridor, and staff recommends award as indicated above. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A Resolution rejecting bids for Bid Item No. 3 and accepting bids for Bid Item No.s 1, 2, 4a, 4b and 5 is provided for consideration. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF HOUSES ON 69TH AVENUE NORTH, PHASE III, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -14 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1991 -14, Removal of Houses on 69th Avenue North, Phase III, the following bids or offers were received, opened and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 3rd day of July, 1991: Bid Item Bid Item Bid Item Bid Item Bid Item Bid Item Bidder No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4a No. 4b No. 5 Ernst Machinery & Housemovers Corp. $6,154.00 $5,749.00 - -- - -- - -- - -- Semple Builders Movers ($1,000.00) ($ 900.00) ($5,850.50) ($6,880.00) $ 558.00 ($5,300.00) Veit & Company, Inc. ($6,693.00) ($6,693.00) ($6,693.00) ($8,391.00) - -- ($6,391.00) Doty & Sons, Inc. ($5,375.00) ($5,375.00) ($6,350.00) ($7,250.00) ($ 800.00) ($5,375.00) Otting House Movers $4,100.00 $3,200.00 $ 100.00 - -- - -- - -- WHEREAS, it appears that Ernst Machinery and Housemovers Corporation of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota has submitted the highest offers for bid items 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, it appears that Semple Building Movers, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota has submitted the highest offer for bid item 4b; and WHEREAS, it appears that Semple Building Movers, Inc, of St. Paul, Minnesota has submitted the lowest costs for bid items 4a and 5; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's best interest to reject all the bids submitted for bid item 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. All bids received for bid item 3 are hereby rejected. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute contracts with Ernst Machinery and Housemovers Corporation for bid items 1 and 2 with payments to the City in the total amount of $ 11,903; and with Semple Building Movers, Inc. for bid items 4a, 4b and 5 with payments to the Contractor in the total amount of $ 11,622. RESOLUTION N0, 3. All costs and revenues associated with Improvement Project No. 1991 -14 shall be accounted for in the MSA Fund No. 2611. 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 07108191 Agenda Item Numbe • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PARKING LOT LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT CIVIC CENTER, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -18 DEPT. APPROVAL: Jvl Sy Knapp, DirkXr of Pilbfic Works **************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * ** * * MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABMNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached y,, • The 1991 annual budget for the Government Buildings division included $15,968 for replacement of the heads of the lights (or "luminaires ") in the Civic Center's north and south lots with brighter fixtures. This funding would have replaced the heads of all 16 lights. Resolution No. 91 -67, which amended the 1991 budget for anticipated local government aids reductions, decreased that appropriation by $5,400, to $10,568. At that time, it was anticipated that we would replace as many of the fixtures as possible with the reduced funding, and request funding for the remaining fixtures in 1992. Our electrical contractors have informed us that there is an alternate luminaire available which would provide the same upgrade in illumination as was originally specified, at a lesser cost. This luminaire is of a different design and look than the existing fixtures, but is as or more flexible and energy efficient. We have obtained proposals from three contractors to install these Kim Lighting "Archetype" luminaires. The lowest bidder is Collins Electric. Collins' proposal is to replace the fixtures on all 16 lights for $10,376. Since that proposal would complete all the necessary work within the amount budgeted in 1991, there will be no need to request additional funds in 1992 to complete the job. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting proposals and awarding a contract to Collins Electric is provided for Council consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PARKING LOT LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT CIVIC CENTER, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -18 WHEREAS, the 1991 annual budget includes $10,698 for replacement of the luminaries on the Civic Center parking lot lights; and WHEREAS, the following proposals have been obtained: Collins Electric Company $10,376 Killmer Electric Co., Inc. 10,453 Young Electric Company 12,880 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal of Collins Electric is hereby accepted. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Collins Electric on the basis of its bid. 3. All costs for this improvement shall be charged to the Government Buildings Division 19 of the General Fund, Object No. 4520. 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. , r Y y` s 'T ��s �s 7, +nrn 777 .�sy,�. 77+►j ,art^" owl W" 7j 773 77 Wp,,r!f'44 �tw �� �Iir �►( ,r a���l ,y�r �.;� * 'r� �;^ a'�' ,It' �r �!1 y a+-. ,.^ � •.w ar ..T --+► .r ,Ilr� »'I �frr� * w rf �� a . rvr; i+ x i';'>'l r' :t '�"►'�,y �'I1,7 a 1J �� ,f ' ' ..�� "� Ar'i.ti M/ ,1 ..tom ti r .�*C 3 r r! d � 1 / "t ??3 .U` w�- .r,,+ly A 'amr ✓f"'9R9 '^�°4yr :btCt" .`; .k ���+y r '.*?� wis�`.�. ,:.t�s• 111W , .. ,. " �:* �,yrn✓ z' `'.... r, iwnrs ..r n4l►' „ 'r'wa.� - ;."w.. .... , °."„vim .- pax* '”' �, pWM 7', }"�.lf 'K r"t' �„'t rr, swwl —fowl w ...... �d�n�� A '.: ".,.�, xn A r��' �` +4�,v t A e fi ;•b` xr�.�"I' r .fir, ka �Y ,� +,m`t3#4�� .y{`"� r' ',. x 4. A� 1 Y b i c y b y r�1 :l . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Number I CON REQUEST FOR COUNCIL SIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALK SECTIONS ALONG BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -04, CONTRACT 1991 -E DEPT. APPROVAI,,: A n� t Sy KnWp, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes City staff recommends the establishment of Improvement Project 1991 -04, Replacement of Sidewalk Sections Along Brooklyn Boulevard, between I- 94/694 and Shingle Creek. Please refer to the attached map for the location of the proposed replacements. Various panels of the existing concrete walks, originally constructed in 1971, are in need of replacement. Also, the pedestrian ramps, located where the sidewalks intersect the cross - streets, should be reconstructed to comply with the standards recently adopted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This amount of sidewalk replacement is much greater than what is annually performed by City forces; therefore it is proposed that this project be let for competitive bids and administered as such. The total project cost for these improvements is estimated as $ 22,777 (see attached Resolution for detail). The proposed source of funding for all costs relating to these improvements is the Local State Aid Fund No. 2611. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing the project, approving plans and specifications, and directing ad for bids is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALKS ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -04, CONTRACT 1991 -E WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that there exist portions of the City's sidewalk system which require replacement; and WHEREAS, the required replacements are beyond the scope of usual maintenance performed by City forces; and NOW THEREFORE, HER FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1991 -04, Sidewalk Replacement along Brooklyn Boulevard, is hereby established. 2. Said plans and specifications as prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved. 3. The 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 City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the 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 $ 17,840 Contingency (151) $ 2.680 Subtotal Construction $ 20,520 Materials Testing (1 %) $ 205 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 1,642 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ 410 Total Est. Project Cost $ 22,777 RESOLUTION N0. 5. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the MSA Fund No. 2611. 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. s� j ST NE 4 I I I 1L'A I I I i • HINGLE _CREEK �� ��/ Z EAST Q L 41 j W m 72 N D Q �. Q NON I % � II I QUAIL NI r CIRCLE ► a�� 71 ST AV E. N'. 71 S T I ° p ggjECT LOCATION 1 WILLOW scNaoL 2 AST &WEST SIDEWA X j � � a z i w i a LL > / i X 70TH AVE, N, I < c� I ti x x C, O W Q wl WIL RtCANE�c w (�� _ Z. I C > G 7 \ `C Z giCl X C. S. H. 334 N0. 130 69TH { a U.S. Q > > = m w POST WATER TOWS P a a a OFFICE a G K0.1. F68 AVE. N. 68TH , AVE. w a o:: a Zt i 87TH AVE . N. to 94 LANE xy� QP'Y I H6 6TH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1991 -04 0 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT BROOKLYN BLVD. (C.R. #152) FROM 1 -94 TO NORTH CITY LIMITS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Numbe • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON WOODBINE LANE AT CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12A DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dire' or of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • After last year's televised sewer inspection, a portion of the 8" clay pipe sewer near the intersection of Woodbine Lane and Camden Ave. No. was found to be in need of repair (please refer to the attached map for the location of the proposed improvement). Accordingly, in late May of this year, the City Engineer requested proposals for Improvement Project 1991 -12A, Sanitary Sewer Repair on Woodbine Lane at Camden Ave. No. Of the two proposals received for the repair, the lowest submitted was that of Glendale Contracting Inc., of Plymouth, Minnesota. Glendale has extensive experience in underground utility work and was recently awarded Improvement Project 1990 -03, Water Distribution System Improvements. Glendale continues to maintain a good working relationship with City Staff, and accordingly, is recommended for award. The total project cost for this improvement is estimated as $ 8,223 (see attached Resolution for detail). The proposed source of funding for all costs relating to this improvement is the Public Utility Fund. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing the project, accepting proposal and awarding contract to Glendale is provided for consideration by the City Council. SCALE I" = 50' 0' 50' 100' WOODBINE LANE I z c� Z _ � Z I W LL.I DENOTES SAWCUT BITUMINOUS _ > E XISTING 8" V.C `r EXIST. WATE I 1 W 3 EX IST. STORM ' �. Us, a I X W (D DENOTES BITUMINOUS REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AREA 2Q REMOVE AND REPLACE ±35 L.F. OF 8" V.C.P. WITH 8" P.V.C., RECONNECT AT MANHOLE AND RE —SEAL NEW P.V.C. 3Q SUBCUT 18" BELOW PROPOSED INVERT ELEV. AND INSTALL CLASS 8 BEDDING TO SPRINGLINE OF NEW 8" P.V.C. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1991 -12A r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON WOODBINE LANE AT CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12A WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that there exist portions of the City's sewer system which require repair; and WHEREAS, the required repair is beyond the scope of usual maintenance performed by City forces; and WHEREAS, proposals for Improvement Project No. 1991 -12A were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 28th day of May, 1991, and said proposals were as follows: Adjustment Price Bidder Base Bid per Lineal Foot Glendale Contracting, Inc. $ 6,500.00 $ 30.00 Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. $ 7,425.00 $ 200.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Glendale Contracting, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota, has provided the lowest responsible proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1991 -12A, Sanitary Sewer Repair on Woodbine Lane at Camden Avenue North, is hereby established. 2. The proposal as submitted by Glendale Contracting, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $ 6,500, with Glendale Contracting, Inc. in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1991 -12A. i RESOLUTION N0, 3. The estimated project costs for Improvement Project No. 1991 -12A are established as follows: Contract $ 6,500 Contingency (15 %) 975 Subtotal Construction $ 7,475 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 598 Admin. & Legal (2%) 150 Total Est. Project Cost $ 8,223 4. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date ZZ8 f Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON 5TH STREET NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12B DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes A portion of the 8" clay pipe sewer in 5th St. No., near 67th Ave. No. has been identified as a maintenance problem and is in need of repair (please refer to the attached map for the location of the proposed repair). Accordingly, in late May of this year, the City Engineer requested proposals for Improvement Project 1991 - 12B, Sanitary Sewer Repair on 5th St. No. Two proposals were received for the work, and the lower was that of Volk Sewer and Water, Inc., for $ 11,100. It is Staff's opinion, however, that the adjustment unit price provided in the proposal of $ 210 per lineal foot causes the bid to be "unbalanced "; if the quantities involved in the repair exceed the estimate by any amount, the City would be forced to pay an unrealistically high amount for the additional work. Volk Sewer and Water, Inc. was contacted regarding the unbalanced nature of the bid, but they (Volk) assured staff that the bid was as they intended. The other proposal, as submitted by Glendale Contracting Inc. for $ 12,000, is $ 900 higher, but provides a realistic adjustment unit price of $ 30 per lineal foot. It is noted that due to the nature of underground utility repair, the conditions encountered at the time of excavation can vary from what is originally estimated. For this reason, it is Staff's opinion that the bid as submitted by Glendale best serves the interest of the City of Brooklyn Center, and accordingly, staff recommends award to Glendale. The total project cost for this improvement is estimated as $ 15,180 (see attached Resolution for detail). The proposed source of funding for all costs relating to this improvement is the Public Utility Fund. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • A resolution establishing the project, accepting proposal and awarding contract to Glendale is provided for consideration by the City Council. r • SCALE I"= 50' 0' 50' 100' 5TH STREET z Lv Q 500 67TH 6701 6713 , � r i CST. WATER ` �� r — AWCUT BITUMINOUS a 2 30 60.6' 467 o _ 6706 � ODENOTES BITUMINOUS REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AREA © REMOVE AND REPLACE 50 LF. OF 8` V.C.P. WITH 8" P.V.C., AND RECONNECT SERVICES WITH P.V.C.. S FERNCO ADAPTERS Q3 SUSCUT IS" BELOW PROPOSED INVERT ELEV. AND INSTALL CLASS 6 BEDDING TO SPRINGUNE OF NEW 8" P.V.C. IMPROVEM ENT PROJECT 1991 -12B Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON 5TH STREET NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12B WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that there exist portions of the City's sewer system which require repair; and WHEREAS, the required repair is beyond the scope of usual maintenance performed by City forces; and WHEREAS, proposals for Improvement Project No. 1991 -12B were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 28th day of May, 1991, and said proposals were as follows: Adjustment Price Bidder Base Bid per Lineal Foot Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. $ 11,100.00 $ 210.00 Glendale Contracting, Inc. $ 12,000.00 $ 30.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that the low proposal as submitted by Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. be rejected on the basis of being unbalanced. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1991 -12B, Sanitary Sewer Repair on 5th Street North, is hereby established. 2. The proposal as submitted by Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. is rejected, on the basis of being unbalanced. 3. The proposal as submitted by Glendale Contracting, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $ 12,000.00, with Glendale Contracting, Inc. in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1991 -12B. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The estimated project costs for Improvement Project No. 1991 -B are established as follows: Contract $ 12,000 Contingency (15 %) $ 1.800 Subtotal Construction $ 13,800 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 1,104 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ 276 Total Est. Project Cost $ 15,180 5. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -08 DEPT, APPROVAL: Sy Knapp irecto Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Televised sewer inspection has previously been utilized by the City, in the search for infiltration, broken pipe sections, the effects of trench settlements, improper or failed service connection, the presence of excessive tree roots, etc. Sewer inspection of this type is also essential when contemplating rehabilitation or replacement of an existing line. In light of the recent pipe failure near Lift Station No. 1, and the suspicion of the remainder of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) sewer upstream, it is recommended that the known CMP sewers be "televised ", so that staff could possibly be alerted in advance of necessary repairs or replacements. In addition, the interceptor sewer adjacent to the Mississippi River is being recommended for inspection at this time. Consequently, the City Engineer requested proposals for Improvement Project No. 1991 -08, Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, for the above described sewer segments. Of the three proposals received for the work, the lowest submitted was that of Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota. A list of the proposals submitted is as follows: Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. $ 4,025.45 Solidification, Inc. $ 4,669.53 Midwest Underground Inspections, Inc. $ 5,835.74 Visu -Sewer has considerable experience in this type of work in the Metro area and was most recently recommended by the City of Bloomington. Accordingly, staff recommends award to Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc., of Minneapolis, MN. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing the project, accepting proposal and awarding contract to Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. is provided for consideration by the City Council. • r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -08 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council of the need for televised inspection; and WHEREAS, the City does not possess the equipment necessary to perform such inspections; and WHEREAS, proposals for Televised Sewer Inspection were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 2nd day of July, 1991, and said proposals were as follows: Bidder Bid Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. $ 4,025.45 Solidification, Inc. $ 4,669.53 Midwest Underground Inspections, Inc. $ 5,835.74 WHEREAS, it appears that Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, has provided the lowest responsible proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1991 -08, Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, is hereby established. 2. The proposal as submitted by Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $ 4,025.45, with Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1991 -08. 3. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Data 017i0 /91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOR CANADA GOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT DEPT. APPROVAL:, Sy Knapp, r 'tor of u 6 lic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOnaIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • In May, 1987 the City entered into a 4 year (1987 -90) contract with the University of Minnesota to conduct a Canada Goose control program. That program has been conducted annually by Dr. James A. Cooper, Associate Professor and Wildlife Extension Specialist for the University, with excellent results. The number of birds relocated annually is as follows: Year from Central Park /Centerbrook from Twin Lakes area Total 1987 58 0 (not included) 58 1988 30 140 170 1989 38 128 166 1990 16 129 145 City staff believes it is necessary to continue conducting such a control program to prevent the recurrence of the problems which occurred in 1985 and 1986. Accordingly, we have requested the University of Minnesota to prepare a new contract for consideration by the City Council. A copy of this proposed contract is attached. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. is Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOR CANADA GOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reported to the City Council that it is appropriate to continue Canada Goose Population Management, in cooperation with the University of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received a proposed contract from the University of Minnesota, to provide Canada Goose Population Management. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with the University of Minnesota for the purpose of Canada goose population management and ecology for years 1991 through 1995 at an estimated cost of $2,000 per year. Payment for these services shall be charged to Parks Maintenance, Division 69 of the General 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. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 200 Hodson Hall, 1980 Fol hell Are. College ojNaturalResources St. Paul,MN55108 -1036 612- 624 -3600 Fax: 612-625-5299 MINNESOTA COOPERA TINE FISH.LND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT COOPERATORS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Universiry o0finnesota Minnesota Department oGNatural Resources Wildlife Management Institute 6/19/91 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Sy: Enclosed are two copies of a contract for continuing the control of Canada geese in your city. I assumed that we would continue to control at two locations, North Twin Lake and Central Park- Centerbrook Golf Course. Sincerely yours, Dr. ames A. Cooper Associate Professor and Wildlife Extension Specialist enclosures CONTRACT BETWEEN THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA (hereinafter referred to as the UNIVERSITY) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA (hereinafter referred to as the SPONSOR) CONTRACT Title: Canada Goose Population Management and Ecology PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: James A. Cooper CONTRACT AMOUNT: $8,000 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 1991 EXPIRATION DATE: May 31, 1995 IN WITNESS OF the agreements and covenants contained in this contract, the authorized representatives of the UNIVERSITY and of the SPONSOR have hereunto set their hands, each warranting that he /she is empowered and authorized to execute the same. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SPONSOR OF MINNESOTA BY: BY: Mary Lou Weiss Assistant Director TITLE: Research Administration TITLE: DATE: DATE: ARTICLE I - Statement of Work The UNIVERSITY hereby agrees to exert its best efforts to perform the work set forth in Appendix A, attached. Any change in the scope or objective of the work requires prior written approval of the Principal Investigator and the authorized representative of the SPONSOR. ARTICLE II - Consideration and Payment Presently, after the authorized representatives of the UNIVERSITY and SPONSOR have fully executed this contract, the UNIVERSITY shall submit to Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430, as authorized representative of the SPONSOR, an invoice for that year's fee as set forth in Appendix B. Said invoice shall be submitted on or after March 15th of each year. The fee shall be paid within 60 calendar days to the authorized representative of the UNIVERSITY, and in full consideration of all work to be performed, as set forth in ARTICLE I, above, and all costs, direct and indirect, of labor, materials, equipment, supplies, services, and all other costs of whatever nature to be incurred in the performance thereof. ARTICLE III - Budget Appendix B, attached, contains the approved budget for this contract. The budget provides for goose management at two locations within the Brooklyn Center. A location is defined as an area where adult and young Canada geese concentrated during June. If the SPONSOR, after reviewing the status of goose populations, requests that management be done at fewer or more than one location, the budget will be revised under the provision provided for in Article V. ARTICLE IV - Reports A. The Principal Investigator shall submit to the authorized representative of the SPONSOR program reports as set forth in Appendix A. B. The UNIVERSITY shall not submit to the SPONSOR financial reports for this fixed -price contract. ARTICLE V - Modifications Any modifications, variations, or waivers of the terms of this contract, and any change in the amount thereof as set forth on page 1, above, shall become effective only upon being reduced to a written amendment hereunto, signed by the authorized representatives of the UNIVERSITY and of the SPONSOR. ARTICLE VI - Termination A. Either the UNIVERSITY or the SPONSOR may terminate this contract by notifying the authorized representative of the other thirty (30) days in advance of a specified termination date. B. Upon receiving a termination notice from the SPONSOR, the UNIVERSITY shall exercise reasonable diligence to cancel orders, obligations, and commitments relating to this contract, and to cancel_ or redirect commitments for personal services. C The SPONSOR shall remain liable for all costs incurred by the UNIVERSITY pursuant to this contract, including uncancelable orders, obligations, and commitments, made prior to receiving a termination notice. Upon payment of all such costs, the Principal Investigator shall deliver to the authorized representative of the SPONSOR such incomplete Subject Data, in its extant format, as ARTICLE XI, below, requires. ARTICLE VII- Records and Inspection A. The UNIVERSITY shall maintain books, records, and other evidence of costs incurred and revenues received under this contract, to document fully all net costs, direct and indirect, of labor, materials, equipment, supplies, and services, and all other costs of whatever nature. B. At all reasonable times during the retention period, Paragraph C, below, the SPONSOR, or any authorized audit representative, shall have access to such pertinent UNIVERSITY books, records, and other evidence, to audit and examine them. C The UNIVERSITY shall preserve all such books, records, and other evidence pertaining to this contract for three (3) years after the contract period. D The UNIVERSITY shall retain all materials relating to any litigation or claim resulting from this contract, or to contract costs questioned upon inspection or audit, until such litigation, claim, or question has been settled. ARTICLE VIII - Subcontracts A. The UNIVERSITY shall obtain written approval from the authorized representative of the SPONSOR before subcontracting any of the work set forth in ARTICLE I, above. However, this ARTICLE shall not be construed to apply to the purchase by the UNIVERSITY of materials, supplies, equipment, and services incidental but necessary to perform the work set forth in ARTICLE I, above. B. All subcontracts shall incorporate the pertinent provisions of this contract, by reference or otherwise. ARTICLE IX - Assignments The UNIVERSITY and the SPONSOR each shall obtain written approval from the authorized representative of the other before assigning this contract in whole or in part or any monies due or to become due under this contract, to any third party or parties. ARTICLE X - Publication A. The UNIVERSITY and the SPONSOR each may freely publish the results of the work set forth in ARTICLE I, above, both Subject Data, as defined in ARTICLE XI, below, and otherwise, so long as any existing or future copyright of the Subject Data is not prejudiced thereby. The Principal investigator and the authorized representative of the SPONSOR each shall submit to the other, copies of all such manuscripts for review prior to publication. B. Publication by either the UNIVERSITY or the SPONSOR shall credit the other for the cooperative nature of the said work. Commercial brands or trade names shall not appear in such publication, except as necessary sa to describe the said work; n P P y or shall the names of the UNIVERSITY or of the SPONSOR be used for advertising purposes. I C Prior to publication, either the UNIVERSITY or the SPONSOR shall obtain written approval from the authorized representative of the other before publicizing the results of the said work. ARTICLE XI - Rights in Data and Copyright A. The term "Subject Data" as used herein includes research data and reports, writings, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings or other graphical representations, and works of any similar nature (whether or not copyrighted), which the UNIVERSITY shall deliver to the authorized representative of the SPONSOR pursuant to ARTICLE IV, above. The term does not include financial reports, and materials, books, records, and other evidence incidental to contract administration. B. The UNIVERSITY shall own all copyrights arising from the Subject Data. However, if the University chooses not to obtain such copyrights, the SPONSOR may secure them. C In the event that either the UNIVERSITY or the SPONSOR secures a copyright pursuant to ((B) above, such party (the Licensor) hereby grants to the other (the Licensee) a royalty -free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, dispose of, ad to authorize others to do so for the Licensee's use, all Subject Data now or hereafter covered by copyright: Provided that with respect to Subject Data originating outside of this contract but incorporated into the Subject Data furnished hereunder, such license shall be only to the extent that the Licensor has, or prior to the expiration of the contract may acquire, the right to grant such license without becoming liable to compensate others solely because of such a grant. D This ARTICLE shall not be construed to limit the rights of UNIVERSITY employees to utilize Subject Data in other formats in pursuit of scholarly activities and to publish Subject Data in scholarly or professional journals, so long as any existing or future copyright of the Subject Data is not prejudiced thereby. ARTICLE XII - Jurisdiction The SPONSOR agrees to abide by the laws of the State of Minnesota in all matters regarding this contract. ARTICLE XIII - Patents Title to all patentable discoveries and patents therefrom, resulting from the work set forth in ARTICLE I, above, shall vest in the UNIVERSITY. After an invention has been identified, the authorized representatives of the SPONSOR and the UNIVERSITY shall negotiate the nature and scope of the SPONSOR's rights. ARTICLE XIV - Authorized Representatives A. The authorized representative esentative of the UNIVERSITY for notifications and binding approvals shall be: Mr. Anton R. Potami Assistant Vice President CR Ms. Mary Lou Weiss Assistant Director CR Ms. Marilyn Surbey Assistant Director CR Ms. Win Ann Schumi Assistant Director Office of Research and Technology Transfer Administration 1919 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 U.S.A. B. The authorized representative of the SPONSOR for notifications and binding approvals shall be: Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ARTICLE XV - Other Provisions None. ARTICLE XVI - Contract Complete All materials and provisions incorporated into this contract, by reference or otherwise, must be attached hereunto. This contract, including all materials and provisions incorporated herein by reference or otherwise, contains all agreements and covenants between the UNIVERSITY and the SPONSOR. No other understandings, provisions, or materials, whether written, oral, or otherwise, regarding this contract, shall be deemed to exist or to bind the UNIVERSITY, the SPONSOR, or both. APPENDIX A PROPOSAL Title: Population management of Brooklyn Center Canada Geese. Prepared by: Dr. James A. Cooper, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. (612- 624 -1223) Date: 4/15/91 Importance: Extirpated by market and subsistence hunting over much of its southern range during settlement, the Canada goose (Branta canadensis) has been reestablished in the midwest and elsewhere. This successful wildlife management program resulted from federal, state, and private efforts (Nelson 1963, Dill and Lee 1970, and Cooper 1978). Contemporary landscaping and farming practices have greatly enhanced Canada goose habitat. Lawns, soybeans, small grains, and pasture sown on lake and wetland shorelines provide a super abundance of brood - rearing habitat in both rural and urban settings. These sites and harvested agricultural crops, especially corn and small grains, are used at other times of the year. This, coupled with refuges created to protect the birds during establishment and the expansion of cities where hunting is not permitted, has lead to a phenomenal population growth in past 20 years. Because Canada geese are highly social and occur in flocks during all periods of the year except nesting (Zicus 1981, Schultz 1983) and graze extensively on grasses, forbs, and crops, goose flocks, particularly adults with flightless young, began to damage Minnesota crops in 1980 (Rose 1981). Concentrations of geese and their droppings in city parks, on golf courses, and goose flights near airports have lead to a growing number of complaints in urbanized areas, e. g., Denver, Minneapolis -St. Paul, Toronto, Boston, and Westchester County in New York (Laycock 1982, Oetting 1983). While population reductions methods, such as capture and removal and increased hunting kill, have been used, none have be adequately tested or documented in the literature. This project will test further removal and translocation. Objectives: 1. To assist with development of population objectives, i. e., the acceptable number of geese at specific sites. 2. To model populations and estimate removal levels needed to attain and maintain desired population levels. 3. Provide technical expertise and participate in public hearings and assist with public relations. 4. To coordinate and do goose removal in 1991 as population control procedures. 5. To monitor population levels from 1991 to 1992 to ascertain population reduction effectiveness. Methods: Model- -Much of the data necessary o construct a model have Y been gathered from 1973 to 1983 for the Metropolitan Twin Cities Canada Goose populations (Salyer 1977, Cooper unpubl. data). Parameters that have been measured include participation in breeding by sex and age class, age related productivity, effect of re- pairing, emigration and immigration, gosling, subadult, and adult survival. Additional data are needed on the effect of density reduction on breeding participation, dispersal, and survival. These data will obtained by capturing and neckbanding (Sherwood 1966) flightless, immature geese, and subsequently capturing and removing the breeding segment of the population the next summer. Because Canada geese do not breed until 2 years of age, or older, by monitoring the breeding participation rate of the marked geese in the following 2 years and comparing the rate of participation with existing data (Cooper, unpubl.), the effect of the lowering the density can be determined. Survival and dispersal of will be ascertained from neckband reobservation (Cormack 1964; Cooper 1975). The model will be based on the Jolly method as modified Barry (1977) except that neckband observations will be employed instead of legband recaptures. Removal - -The effectiveness of goose removal will be predicted using the model and evaluated by monitoring population growth. Population level objectives will be established in consultation with cooperating city and agency personnel. Selected target populations will be reduced by capturing and removing young and adults during the summer flightless period (Martz et al. 1982). Growth in these populations will be measured by 1) ascertaining nest densities using methods similar to that of Cooper (1978), 2) by conducting brood counts prior arrival of migrants in mid - September, and by doing population counts from August to December. Chronology of Research Activities: 1991 15 May -5 June -- identify brood concentrations, model populations and estimate goose removal levels; participate in public hearing and attain permits. 5 June -7 July -- coordinate and conduct goose removal. 1 August -31 December -- conduct population counts and read markers at goose concentration sites. 1992 1 January -15 April -- summarize data and prepare annual report. 15 April -5 June -- conduct nest density surveys and brood counts; estimate goose removal using population model. Literature Cited: Barry, C.T. 1977. The mortality of Yorkshire Canada geese. Wildfowl 28:35 -47. Cooper, J.A. 1975. Estimating Canada goose survival in an urban environment from neckband observations. 37th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Toronto, Ontario. Cooper, J.A. 1978. The history and breeding biology of the Canada geese of Marshy Point, Manitoba. Wildl. Monogr. 61. 87pp. Cormack, R. M. 1964. Estimate of survival from sighting of marked animals. Biometrika 51:429 -438. Dill, H.H. and F.B. Lee eds. 19 ( ) 70. Home grown honkers. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, D. C. 154pp. Laycock, G. 1982. The urban goose. Audubon 84 :44 -47. Martz, J., L. Pospichal, and E. Tucker. 1982. Giant Canada geese in , Michigan: experiences with translocations and nuisance management. in Johnson, M. A. (Ed.) Transactions of The Canada Goose Symposium, North Dakota TWS Chapter, 71pp. Nelson, H.K. 1963. Restoration of breeding Canada goose flocks in the North Central States. Trans. N. A. Wildl. Conf. 28:133 -150. Oetting, R. 1983. Overview of management of Canada geese and their recent urbanization. in Johnson, M. A. (Ed.) Transactions of The Canada Goose Symposium, North Dakota TWS Chapter, 71pp. Rose, J. 1981. Fergus Falls goose shortage turns into goose abundance. Minnesota Out -Of -Doors 27(11):22. Sayler, R. D. 1977. Breeding ecology of the Twin Cities, Minnesota, Metropolitan Canada geese. M. S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 61 pp- Schultz, D. F. 1983. Fall flock behavior and harvest of Canada geese in the vicinity of the Talcot Lake Wildlife Management Area in southwest Minnesota. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 72pp. Sherwood, G.A. 1966. Flexible plastic collars compared to nasal discs for marking geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 30:853 -855. Zicus, M.C. 1975. Capturing nesting Canada geese with mist nets. Bird Banding 46:168 -169. Zicus, M.C. 1981. Flock behavior and vulnerability to hunting of Canada geese nesting at Crex Meadows, Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:830- 841. APPENDIX B I BUDGET* 1991 1992 1993 1994 Salaries (program coordination and monitoring) 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 Fringe benefits @ 12.23% of salaries 171 171 171 171 Travel and shipping 400 400 400 400 Miscellaneous (phone, boots, computer disks) 200 2 0 0 200 2 0 0 TOTAL 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 *The City of Brooklyn Center authorizes transfer of funds between subaccounts. 40 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 07/08/91 • Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: c r Sy Knapp, Dir for bPublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAEVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached —j 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 all 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 07/08/91 ) 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 ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TIMOTHY & PEGGY GORDON 4913 BEARD AVE N 100 TIMOTHY & PEGGY GORDON 4913 BEARD AVE N 101 RALPH & DOLORES HASTINGS 5813 ALDRICH AVE N 102 TIMOTHY OLSON 6524 CHOWEN AVE N 103 MARY FERRIS 5942 WASHBURN AVE N 104 RICHARD & MADONNA BROWN 6001 WASHBURN AVE N 105 THOMAS & MARY AHERN 5901 VINCENT AVE N 106 THOMAS & MARY AHERN 5901 VINCENT AVE N 107 THOMAS & MARY AHERN 5901 VINCENT AVE N 108 THOMAS & MARY AHERN 5901 VINCENT AVE N 109 PATRICIA WALLNER 7200 RIVERDALE RD 110 RUTH BJELENY 6300 KYLE AVE N 111 LEROY & WILMA EDEBURN 6724 SCOTT AVE N 112 STEVEN MCMONIGAL 6731 SCOTT AVE N 113 HARLOW & CHARLOTTE PALM 6119 PERRY AVE N 114 KATHLEEN SCHMITT 6113 PERRY AVE N 115 IND. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 279 6201 NOBLE AVE N 116 GUSTAV & JOYCE HOLM 814 62ND AVE N 117 ROGER & CECILIA GIFFORD 6037 COLFAX AVE N 118 ROGER & CECILIA GIFFORD 6037 COLFAX AVE N 119 CATHERINE BENSON 5959 CAMDEN AVE N 120 PAUL & MARCIA WINTER 827 57TH AVE N 121 JAMES & COLLEEN LINDQUIST 5701 BRYANT AVE N 122 RALPH JOHNSON 5740 DUPONT AVE N 123 NICHOLAS & HELEN SHEPPARD 5400 IRVING AVE N 124 DALE WEGNER 5935 DUPONT AVE N 125 MARK & ANNE EDGREN 5743 GIRARD AVE N 126 RESOLUTION NO. M. SCHWEITZER /C. BESAW 1300 55TH AVE N 127 M. SCHWEITZER/C. BESAW 1300 55TH AVE N 128 DAVID & DONNA FOSTER 5615 BRYANT AVE N 129 JEAN & DONNA FOSTER 5634 KNOX AVE N 130 STEPHEN HARRINGTON 6318 GRIMES AVE N 131 MICHAEL LAQUIER 6925 REGENT AVE N 132 PATRICIA ZINS 3307 62ND AVE N 133 PATRICIA ZINS 3307 62ND AVE N 134 GUENTHER ROTH 6120 BROOKLYN BLVD 135 RUDOLPH JOHNSON 5930 ABBOTT AVE N 136 BYRON & NANCY MACH 4712 TWIN LAKE AVE 137 DAVID & SUSAN WEISS 4735 LAKEVIEW AVE 138 S. HIGGINS /C. LARSON 6312 INDIANA AVE N 139 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARLIN PARK 140 JAMES & KARLA WILLIS 4001 71ST AVE N 141 ROGER & DARLENE GUSTAFSON 6935 JUNE AVE N 142 ROGER & DARLENE GUSTAFSON 6935 JUNE AVE N 143 ROGER & DARLENE GUSTAFSON 6935 JUNE AVE N 144 ROGER & DARLENE GUSTAFSON 6935 JUNE AVE N 145 THOMAS & JANICE ST. DENNIS 7231 GRIMES AVE N 146 LEO & CYNTHIA TOOLEY 7107 GRIMES AVE N 147 PATRICK & LEE ANN MURPHY 5611 JAMES AVE N 95 FRANK & JUDYTH KEISLING 3625 VIOLET AVE N 96 ARLENE ANTOLAK 5615 DUPONT AVE N 97 GREGORY WALLER 5625 DUPONT AVE N 98 GREGORY WALLER 5625 DUPONT AVE N 99 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: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Performance Guarantee Releases ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPR . ,,.n 0. Cj-0- Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The following performance guarantees are recommended for release: 1. Johnson Controls 1801 67th Avenue North Planning Commission Application No.90027 Amount of Guarantee - $24,000 bond Obligor - Johnson Controls, Inc. All site improvements have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Recommend total release. 2. Hoffmann Engineering 6530 James Avenue North No Planning Commission Application Amount of Guarantee - $10,000 bond Obligor - Ryan Company, Inc. Trees have been planted and concrete parking delineators have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Recommend total release. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner I . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date July 8, 11991 Agenda Item Number / / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: TEMPORARY ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ST. ALPHONSUS CHURCH DEPT. APPROV J Li 'sa ePolice___, y, Chief of P * * * * * * * * * * * * ame ***** * * * * y,Chi fofP MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONBIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached no St. Alphonsus Catholic Church has made application for a 3 -day temporary on -sale intoxicating liquor license for their annual Fun Fair celebration. The fun fair is to be held July 26, 27, and 28, 1991. St. Alphonsus uses the license to sell beer and wine coolers at this annual event. This would be the fourth year St. Alphonsus has received this license; although they previously received a temporary on -sale nonintoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license for many years. We have had no problems with these sales over the years as they do a good job of security with the sales of these items. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION We recommend the City Council approve the application for a 3 -day On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for St. Alphonsus Catholic Church for July 26, 27, and 28, 1991. IJ Licenses to be approved by the City Council on July 8, 1991: AMUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Earle Brown Bowl 6445 James Circle N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive \?) t Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. ) f 1-r `✓1�(�! Chief of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR C.D.L. Co. 1317 N. Highway 169 Mark John Haider 3630 Admiral Lane �� •�. ��� �•.� Chief of Police U' GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION Darling & Co. /Gordon Rendering P. 0. Box 12785 Mengelkoch Company 119 NE 14th Street Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P. 0. Box 26 � T & L Sanitation 8201 Logan Ave. N. Walz Bros. Sanitation, Inc. P. 0. Box 627 ! •���_ -r�� Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT , Market Source Brookdale Center Metz Baking Company 4215 69th Ave. N. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS '} ' NewMech Companies, Inc. 1633 Eustis Street Building Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street �- Zubaz 6707 Shingle Ck Pkwy Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street ) f Zubaz 6707 Single Ck Pkwy Sanitarian n /� RENTAL DWELLINGS / r'^-- Initial: Timothy and Mary Hofstad 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. YJ203 Michael /Rosella /Joseph Korman 5321 Morgan Ave. N. Renewal: Irvin and Ruth Schloff 4819 Azelia Ave. N. Saw - Mehone Tebedge 5511 Emerson Ave. N. Amos Levang 4816 Lakeview Ave. N. LeRay and Keith Mortensen 4110 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Michael and Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Ave. N. John and Elizabeth Hass 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. IJ306 Gary and Nancy Clark 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #239 Robert Baltuff 5930 Xerxes Ave. N. Outreach Group Homes, Inc. 507 69th Ave. N. Director of Planning and Inspection GENERAL APPROVAL: \ P. O n P. Page, Dep` y Clerk