Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 10-07 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 7, 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. September 23, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Planning Commission Application: (7:05 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 square foot gas station/ convenience store /car wash at the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and T.H. 252. -This application was first considered by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on September 12, 1991, at which time the Planning Commission directed the staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of this application primarily because the applicant was unwilling to make suggested modifications to the site plan. The Planning Commission at its September 27, 1991, meeting adopted Planning Commission Resolution 91 -5 recommending denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018. 9. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Gambling Regulations -This ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. b. An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement in Earle Brown 1st Addition -This ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 7, 1991 c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances g P Y to Allow Detached Car Washes at Service Station Sites -The Planning Commission considered the above entitled ordinance amendment during its review of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 involving a proposed PDQ gas station /convenience store /car wash. The Commission recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. -This ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. 10. Discussion Items: a. Water Slide Operations and Scheduling -Staff will be prepared to discuss the items of concern expressed by City Council Members at the September 23 meeting. b. Staff Reports Regarding Public Utility System Financing 1. Resolution Adopting the Water Utility Rate Schedule 2. Resolution Adopting the Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Schedule 3. Resolution Adopting the Storm Drainage Utility Rate Schedule C. Street Maintenance and Improvement Policies 11. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Work Performed on West River Road, Improvement Project No. 1988 -18, Contract 1989 -I *b. Accepting Work Performed on Contract for Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, Improvement Project No. 1991 -08 *c. Approving Change Order No. 1 to Water Distribution System Improvement, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, Contract 1991 -C *d. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1991 -22, Code Corrections at Community Center, Providing Funding Therefore and Accepting Proposal for Architectural Services Relating Thereto *e. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 10/07/91) *f. Authorizing Issuance of Charitable Gambling License for Brooklyn Center Lions Club at Lynbrook Bowl CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- October 7, 1991 * Authorizing Issuance of Charitable Gambling License for g• g g Brooklyn Center Lions Club at Earle Brown Bowl h. Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 91017 Submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal *i. Declaring Surplus Property - Wright Line Model P5650 Card Punch - Wright line card punch device for old Tech 21 gas system. 12. Final Plat Approval: *a. Howe Inc. 2nd Addition *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91-221 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLD ION CERTIFYING PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES TO THE HEINTMEIPINN COUNTY TAX ROLLS T'he,motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Rtdlar., and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:47 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. DISCU,SSION ITEMS SISTER CITIES PROGRAM Mayor Paulson advised the Council that he and the City Manager had attended the llfinnes,ata League of Cities Convention this past summer and had obtained some inforrnation on the Sister Cities Program wherein an American city becomes a sister city and I forms a link with a community in another nation to exchange ideas and develop friendships. This exchange helps to further international understanding at all levels of the community on a continuing long-term basis. Sister cities and their citizens exchange people, ideas, and mature in a variety of educational, institutional, municipal, professional, technical and youth projects. The Sister Cities Program was established in 1956 and is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Paulson noted the City of Brooklyn Center has already established itself as an All Amerf,ca City and felt that participation in the Sister Cities Program would provide a good Z7 opportunity to enhance that identity and establish global goodwill. CourwBmember Cohen advised the Council that the City of Brooklyn Park had a Sister City inn Australia earlier this year, and had mentioned to that City's officials that a neighboring City in Minnesota may want to participate in the Sister Cities Program. He further added that a forthconuirig, menace from Charlie Darth, Brooklyn Park, will have specific information on the program, ;which he will pro a& to Mayor Paulson. counc"Imtrnb-cer Scott expressed enthusiasm in the suggested rogram and the possibility of 0 0 making it a joint endeayor with the Brocklyn Center school children. There was a motion by Councilm, -Mnb,-1- Cohen, and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer the Sister Cities Program to staff to research and provide additional information to the Council. 919191 C O R R E C T I O N AD HOC COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE i The City Manager presented the Ad Hoc Communications Committee potential membership list and completed application forms /resumes to the Council. The first publication for members in June resulted in a minimal response; however, a recent publication generated several qualified applicants. The Committee consists of six members and a chair, and its function is to review the City's communications efforts and assist the City Council in formulating priorities related to communications. Mayor Paulson's goal is to appoint the committee members and gather them as a group prior to the Mini Conference Brooklyn Center is sponsoring in conjunction with the 97th National Conference on Governance beginning on September 18th. From the list of applicants, Mayor Paulson would like to appoint Janine Pfann from Post Publications and Pat Milton from Northwest News in an ex- officio capacity wherein they can participate in the meetings. The cable television representative could assist with the Committee's communication and publication needs. He would like Lowell Ainas and Kristen Mann to continue their service on the Planning Commission. He would like to appoint Dr. Fred Capshaw, President of North Hennepin Community College, as chair, and Joel Andrewjeski, Jody Brandvold, Patricia Keehr, Gale Tollin, Susan Warner, and Mike Miller as the six members. Mayor Paulson indicated he would like to serve as Council liaison to this committee, and invited the Council members to also serve in either a liaison or ex- officio capacity. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Mayor Paulson's recommended appointments to the Ad Hoc Communications Committee as follows: Dr. Fred Capshaw as chair; Joel Andrewjeski, Jody Brandvold, Patricia Keehr, Gale Tollin, Susan Warner, and Mike Miller as members; and Janine Pfann and Pat Milton as ex- officio members. The motion passed unanimously. PROPOSED 1992 HRG BUDGET The City Manager presented and requested preliminary approval of the proposed 1992 Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) budget. The budget reflects an increase from the current household billing rate of $1.05 per household per month to $1.30 per household per month. The HRG Board recommended the increase to each of its member cities. This is the first billing increase since the program began in 1989. The 1992 Hennepin County Recycling Funding Policy may possibly be modified. Final figures will be available in November or December and will be brought before the Council for final approval at that time. Councilmember Scott recommended additional newspaper publicity of the yard waste transfer site in Maple Grove to relieve the illegal use of the Hennepin County Parks for disposing of yard waste. In anticipation of the fall leaf - raking and yard cleanup season, there is a timely need to promote the free -of- charge yard waste transfer site in Maple Grove. 9/9/91 -12- 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 SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 CITY HALL, BALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Peggy McNabb. OPENING CEREMONIES The Council and staff observed a few moments of silence and self - reflection. 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 on the success of the three - session Mini Conference Brooklyn Center sponsored on September 18 and 19 in conjunction with the 97th National Conference on Governance, and informed the Council that cable television will be broadcasting some of the speeches and question and answer sessions. He expressed thanks and appreciation to the Council, City Manager, and residents of Brooklyn Center for their assistance and support. Couneilmember Cohen thanked the Council for its support and confidence in passing Resolution No. 91 -227 at the September 9 meeting. The resolution was presented to the Metropolitan Council and recommends modification of the 1992 Metro p olitan Council budget and work program to include a comprehensive study of resources needed to address neighborhood and community revitalization such as housing, education, health and human services. 9/23/91 -1- Councilmember Pedlar reported to the Mayor that at its most recent meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission discussed the impact the water slide will have on the swim club's practice schedule. It appears that the practice schedule will remain intact. An additional report will be forthcoming once the details are worked out with the Director of Recreation. Mayor Paulson advised the Council that Dr. Fred Capshaw, President of North Hennepin Community College, has agreed to chair the Communications Committee. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND. ONSENT A ENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Council members requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Scott requested that item 7a, the minutes from the September 9,1991, meeting, be removed. Councilmember Rosene requested the resolution in item 11g be removed. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the agenda and consent agenda with items 7a and 11g removed. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9 1991 - REGULAR SESSION Councilmember Scott noted corrections to the September 9, 1991, minutes: Page 12; last paragraph; first sentence should read: Councilmember Scott recommended additional newspaper publicity of the yard waste transfer site in Maple Grove to relieve the illegal use of the Hennepin County Parks for disposing of yard waste. Mayor Paulson asked the recording secretary to incorporate this revision into the minutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to amend the September 9, 1991, minutes accordingly. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the minutes of the September 9, 1991, regular session with the above amendment. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION N0. 91 -228 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR SIDEWALK AND MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -04, CONTRACT 1991 -E 9/23/91 -2- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly recommended by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -229 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET MAINTENANCE ALLOTMENT FOR 1992 The motion for the adoption of the forcgouig resolution was duly seconded by member Je Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. rry RESOLUTION NO 91 -230 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR 1991 SEALCOATING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -F The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NQ 91 -231 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 09/23/91) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE GU EE RELEASE There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to release the performance guarantee of The Olive Garden, 1601 James Circle, Planning Commission Application No. 90018. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVI E - VIDEO B & B Video Games 4139 Red Oak Ridge GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE Northern Disposal, Inc. 2817 Anthony Lane S 9/23/91 -3- ITINERANT FO ESTABLISH ME NT Axiom Marketing Brook Korean Presbyterian Church dale Center 6830 Quail Avenue N MEME�ICAL SYSTEMS Bostrom Sheet Metal Works, Inc. 785 Curfew Street Comfort Mechanical, Inc. 4721 33rd Avenue N Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. 1441 Rice Street RENTAL DWELLINGS Rcncwal: Dale C. Wegner 5935 Dupont Avenue N B.C. Church of Christ 6219 Dupont Avenue N Charles Knudtson 4201 Lakeside Avenue N, #313 SIGN HANGER Scenic Sign Corporation P.O. Box 881 Schad- Tracey Sign 1600 East Cliff Road The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: PLANNING COMMISSION APPLI ATION NO. 91015 -- DARRELL LYNCH The City Manager presented Planning Commission Application No. 91015 submitted by Darrell Lynch requesting a variance from Section 35 -400 of the zoning ordinance to allow for an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 35' setback at 7042 Halifax Avenue North. The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991, meeting subject to the five conditions included in the Commission's meeting minutes. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the staff report, noting that Mr. Lynch has requested the variance in order to construct a garage on the westerly side of the existing garage, and then convert the existing garage into a woodworking shop. The staff has reviewed standards and specifications for variances contained in the zoning ordinance. The basis for the recommended approval of the application is: 1) the excess right -of -way that exists on the property as a result of reconstruction of Halifax Avenue four to five years ago; and 2) the variance will still allow for a 50' setback from the street line, which is common to the surrounding properties. Public hearing notices have been sent to the surrounding property owners; the applicant was present at the meeting. 9/23/91 4 Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding Planning Commission Application No. 91015 submitted by Mr. Lynch at 7:19 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded b Councilmember er P close Y edlar to the public hearing at 7 :20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 91015 submitted by Mr. Lynch subject to the following considerations and conditions: 1. Imposing a 35' setback from the front property line in this case creates the hardship of an unnecessarily large setback from the street because of the change in street location. 2. The condition of excess right -of -way is relatively unique in the R1 zone and is grounds for mitigation from the required setback. 3. The hardship of unnecessary setback from the street has not been created by the property owner, but by the City. 4. There is no detriment to other properties in the neighborhood as long as a 50' ' setback from the street is maintained. 5. Variance approval acknowledges a setback of 50' from the street. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91016 SUBMITTED BY E LAN, FIELD AND NOWAK INC. REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ON BEHALF F THE OWNER LEONARD LINDQUIST TO RESUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS AND AN OUTLOT THE TWO VACANT LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF WILLOW LANE BETWEEN THE HOMES AT 7006 AND 7032 WILLOW LANE The City Manager presented Planning Commission Application No. 91016 submitted by Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. requesting preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September I2, 1991, meeting subject to the four conditions included in the Commission's meeting minutes. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the staff report, noting that Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. has requested the preliminary plat approval on behalf of Mr. Lindquist in order to resubdivide two existing lots into two Iots for future development with an outlot 9/23/91 - 5 - between the two lots which would provide a new access to an island in the Mississippi River. The island is actually in the City of Brooklyn Park, however, the access to Center. it is in Brooklyn The property is zoned RI and is surrounded by single - family homes on the north and sou Willow Lane on the west, and the Mississippi River on the east. No structures would be allowed on the outlot unless it is combined with one of the buildable lots. There is an approximate 3.3' encroachment on the northerly lot by a shed belonging to the neighboring lot to the north. Mr. Lindquist has apparently agreed to grant an easement to the adjacent property owner. Public hearing notices have been sent to surrounding property w owners Nick Eoloff present to represent the property owner. . as Councilmember Rosene advised the Council he would like to see the fourth condition removed from the preliminary plat approval, noting that although the owner plans to grant an easement, it may be a disadvantage to be dictated by the City to do so. By removing the fourth condition, the property owner would be able to negotiate a fair settlement for the easement if he so desires. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question as to the actual intent of this preliminary plat request, the Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the owner intends to sell the two buildable lots for single -family residences. The Council and City Attorney discussed the issue of settling the encroachment issue prior to the plat approval. The City Attorney recommended the situation be remedied prior to the final plat approval, either by imposing a condition that the 'property owner grant an easement, or by having the owner of the encroaching shed remove it. Councilmember Pedlar suggested opening up the meeting to a public hearing to hear from Mr. Eoloff, who represents the property owner. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding Planning Commission Application No. 91016 submitted by Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. requesting preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane at 7:42 p.m., and invited Mr. Eoloff to address the Council. Nick Eoloff, 5015 Aldrich Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, addressed the Council stating he was in full agreement with the Council's discussion on the encroachment/easement issue and that settling it by either granting an easement or removing the encroachment would be agreeable to the property owner. 9/23/91 _ 5 _ Following further discussion of resolving this encroachment /easement issue, the City Manager recommended imposing a condition in the preliminary plat approval that the encroachment on the north side of the lot must be resolved to the City Attorney's satisfaction prior to approval of the final plat. The Mayor inquired if anyone else present wished to address the Council on this issue. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 7:47 pan. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 91016 submitted by Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. requesting preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane, subject to the following four conditions, and noting that the fourth condition is revised from the Planning Commission's recommendation and meeting minutes: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. ' 3. Outlot A is considered an unbuildable parcel unless combined with or attached to an adjacent buildable lot. 4. The final plat is subject to either the encroachment being removed or an easement being developed with the neighboring property owner to the north for continuation of the encroaching shed satisfactory to the City Attorney. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91017 SUBMITTED BY DENNIS AND GLORIA CARDINAL REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION THAT PARKING A TOW TRUCK IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE (6544 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH I IS A NUISANCE AS DEFINED BY SECTION 19 -103 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES AND IS NOT A LAND SE ELIGIBLE FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT The City Manager presented Planning Commission Application No. 91017 submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal requesting an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone (6544 France Avenue North) is a nuisance as defined by section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land 9/23/91 _ 7 _ use eligible for a special use permit, noting that the application was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 12, 1991, on the grounds that the parking of a tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented the details of this appeal, an overhead diagram of the Cardinal's residential property, and a chronicle of what has transpired to date on this application for special use permit and subsequent appeal of the denial. The appeal is related strictly to a judgment or determination of whether or not the activity of parking an otherwise prohibited vehicle in a residential area can be considered a special use under the zoning ordinance and, thus, be considered for a special use permit. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding Planning Commission Application No. 91017 submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal requesting an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone (5544 France Avenue North) is a nuisance as defined by section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit at 7:58 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Robert Wilson, 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard, the attorney representing Dennis and Gloria Cardinal on this appeal, appeared before the Council and presented the history and background information of this appeal, noting Mr. Cardinal's integrity and 23 -year history of operating a successful and credible business in the City. He stated his intent is to successfully resolve this issue on behalf of Mr. Cardinal. He felt Mr. Cardinal should be exempt from the ordinance according to section 19 -103, subdivision e of the City Ordinances. He further suggested amending the ordinance to allow emergency vehicles to be parked in residential -sized garages with the doors closed, adding that an amendment such as this would still retain the original intention of the ordinance, but yet permit emergency vehicles to be readily available over the night hours. Mr. Wilson advised the Council he is prepared to file a lawsuit in the matter in order to resolve this matter to his clients' satisfaction. In response to the Mayor's question as to what grounds the lawsuit would be based on, Mr. Wilson indicated it would be based on the following grounds: 1. The fact that members of a city council have declared an emergency tow truck a public nuisance; a city council does not have the authority to decide what is or is not a public nuisance. 2. The fact that the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is being violated by this ordinance; and government must compensate the person whose property is being taken away. 9/23/91 -8- 3. The fact that Mr. Cardinal should be grandfathered in as exempt from the ordinance according to Section 19 -103, subdivision e of the City Ordinances. In response to Councilmember Pedlar's request for a legal definition of public nuisance, the City Attorney stated that the definition of public nuisance is something which unreasonably interferes with the comfort, quiet, and enjoyment of property, health, safety and welfare, and it must have an effect on the public -at- large, not just one neighbor. The City Attorney further addressed the suggested grounds for a lawsuit and concluded that the Council does have the authority to impose this restriction as presented. Councilmember Rosene suggested that the Council consider alternatives to this denial, and advised he had personally viewed the location and surroundings of the Cardinal's property and had spoken with one neighbor who strongly supported Mr. Cardinal's request for a special use permit. Councilmember Cohen cautioned the Council on drafting a provision to this ordinance solely to satisfy Mr. Cardinal's situation, noting several other residents in similar business vehicle situations who would also desire and then be entitled to a "personalized" provision. He added further that the purpose of this ordinance is to protect residential property and ensure a desirable comrrrunity for residency. He felt a more fair approach to this issue may be to consider rezoning this area to a C2 commercial zone. Mr. Wilson presented an affidavit from Minnesota State Trooper Paul Andrescik emphasizing the importance of a quick response time by tow trucks to accident scenes on freeways to ensure public safety. Councilmember Scott pointed out the ordinance was drafted specifically in response to the number of complaints against dump trucks, and added, however, that it was drafted only after several years of hard work, studies and public hearings. At the time it was adopted, affected vehicle owners were provided six months to find alternative parking. An additional three -month extension was provided prior to the City beginning the enforcement of the ordinance provisions. Councilmember Pedlar stated his- strong support of the ordinance as written, noting there is a great deal of police and ambulance /rescue work that needs to be done at an accident scene prior to the tow trucks removing the vehicles, which would allow for ample time for the tow truck owner /operator to be called at home and then drive to where the tow truck is parked. The Council, staff, and Mr. Wilson discussed the various components, weights, lengths, etc., of tow trucks in relation to Minnesota statutes permitting vehicles under 9,000 lbs. to park in residential zones. Mr. Wilson advised the Council he would request in writing the City's interpretation of the statutes from the City Attorney. 9/23/91 _ q _ The City Attorney advised the Council needs to determine if the original intent of the ordinance was to restrict all tow trucks or just those over 9,000 Ibs. The possibility of ambiguity in this ordinance needs to be addressed and resolved. The Mayor inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to direct staff to prepare a resolution outlining the history and facts of this application and setting forth the reasoning and rationale for denial to be brought back before the City Council for consideration. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES EXTENDING THE HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND OCC PANCY CODE TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Housing and Maintenance Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties. This ordinance was offered for a first reading on August 12 1991 published in the City's official newspaper on August 21, 1991, offered for a second reading on September 9, 1991, and tabled after a public hearing at the Council's meeting of September 9, 1991, in order to give the Minnesota Multi Housing Association an opportunity to make comments relative to the portion of the ordinance requiring rental dwelling license holders to prevent disorderly activities on their premises. The Association supported the ordinance, however, felt some language modifications or changes would be in order to help apartment owners deal with disorderly tenants, particularly when it comes to unlawful detainers. The Council and staff continued their discussion from the Council meeting of September 9, 1991, on how to effectively address this issue, including screening processes, penalties, inspections, eviction enforcement, and formulating certain police department information and making it available to rental property owners to assist in the screening process. The City Attorney advised the Council that the City Prosecutor is currently working on some recommendations regarding criminal behavior to be included in this amendment and recommended that staff should also continue to work on this ordinance and all proposals should be addressed at one time. 9/23/91 -10- Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of public input on An Ordinance Amending g 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Ho sing Maintenance Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties, g ce and Property owner Stephen Cook presented the following petition to the members of the Brooklyn Center City Council: To the members of the Brooklyn Center City Council: We the property owners residing on the 5300 block of Queen and 5300 block of Russell, have read the proposed amendments to chapter 12 of the city ordinances. We the undersigned would encourage the Council to pass these amendments and diligently enforce them. Signature Address Mr, and Mrs. Richard Ploof 5321 Queen Avenue N Tom Everett and Jill 5319 Queen Avenue N Liz Parise 5337 Queen Avenue N Mr, and Mrs. LaRose 5337 Queen Avenue N Donna J. Sullivan 5339 Queen Avenue N Chris Glanville 2403 - 59th Avenue N Eugene Briggs 5301 Queen Avenue N Tom Guthrie 5300 Queen Avenue N Kathy Guthrie 5300 Queen Avenue N William Grimm 5312 Queen Avenue N Mr, and Mrs. Robert Messersmith 5340 Queen Avenue N Mr. and Mrs. Ken Petersen 5313 Queen Avenue N Mr, and Mrs. Edward Koles ar 5306 Queen Avenue N Eugene R. Ha eman g g 5401 Queen Avenue N Jeanette Hall 5311 Queen Avenue N Alonzo EIlenwood 5300 Russell Avenue N Stephen and Karen Cook 5308 & 5306 Russell Avenue N Ray and Meg Blacik 5328 Russell Avenue N Karen Lundberg 5332 Russell Avenue N Mark Goldes 5332 Russell Avenue N Larry Propst 5344 Russell Avenue N James W. Sorbel, Director of Government Relations, Minnesota Multi Housing Association, addressed the Council and presented the Association's suggested changes to Section 12 -911 of the proposed amendments, and reviewed the reasoning for these changes. The Councilmembers' agenda packets included a copy of Mr. Sorbel's letter to the Director of Planning and Inspection dated September 18, 1991, detailing these suggested changes. 9/23/91 - 11 - Mr. Sorbel advised the Council the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association is certainly interested in, and would be honored to be involved in, any housing issues facing Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Cohen thanked Mr. Sorbel for the Association's interest and assistance. Carol Smith presented the Council with a photocopy of an article from the September 11, 1991, Brooklyn Center Sun Post regarding an attempted murder in her mother's place of residence, and strongly encouraged action by the Council which would ensure more safe and orderly rental properties for tenants to live in. An unidentified property owner addressed the Council stating that landlords need support and assistance in getting evictions passed, rather than being punished and penalized. The Council and staff further discussed the proposed changes to the amendment. ORDINANCE NO 91 -16 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption and recommended that staff continue to work on and fine tune the desired changes to be brought back before the Council for consideration: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES EXTENDING THE HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY CODE TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Phil Cohen. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager advised the Council the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association will be kept informed of all proposals and changes. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR CITY VEHICLES The City Manager presented the staff report of possible use of alternative fuels in City vehicles and equipment. The Director of Public Works reviewed the staff report, noting that gasohol is a mixture of 15% (grain - derived) ethanol and 85% unleaded regular gasoline. Its advantages include reduced air pollution, reduced dependance on foreign oil, and the fact that it is a renewable resource. 9/23/91 -12- Based on the information in the staff report, as well as information from Hennepin County's Gasohol Program, the Director of Public Works recommended approval of the use of gasohol in City vehicles and equipment. He further recommended proceeding initially with gasohol use in new vehicle only and then gradually converting the older vehicles on a monitored test program. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the use of gasohol in City vehicles as recommended by staff and the Director of Public Works. Councilmember Cohen raised a discussion on the impact Minnesota's eight- cents - per - gallon reduced gas tax on gasohol will eventually have on State aid and the City's ability to construct and maintain roadways and bridges. Councilmember Rosene suggested the money saved by the City's use of gasohol may possibly offset a reduction in State aid. Councilmember Cohen stated his support of initiating the use of gasohol in City vehicles and equipment, and added, however, at some point in time the use of gasohol will have to contribute to roadway and bridge construction and maintenance. The motion to approve the use of gasohol in City vehicles and equipment as recommended by staff and the Director of Public Works passed unanimously. 1991_ RESIDENTIAL REFORESTATION PROGRAM REPORT The City Manager presented the staff report on the 1991 Residential Reforestation Program Report. The Director of Public Works reviewed the program, noting the Council had elected to expend $3,000 from the Park Maintenance Division 1991 Budget to provide for the 1991 Residential Reforestation Program in order to provide assistance and incentive in the control of the spread of diseases. The program offered $50 coupons to residents who have had a diseased tree removed through the City's Diseased Tree Program. The coupon was good toward purchase of a replacement tree from participating nurseries. The program received a great deal of positive response from residents. All sixty coupons that were authorized have been awarded in a lottery -type system with first priority given to residents who replied to the 1990 reforestation survey, and second priority given to residents who had a diseased tree marked in 1990 through the Diseased Tree Program In response to Councilmember Pedlar's question as to whether qualifying residents who were not awarded coupons this year would be given priority next year should the Council elect to continue the Reforestation Program in 1992, the City Manager said they would. 9/23/91 -13- In response to Councilmember Scott's concern about the dead trees still remaining on Dumam Island, the City Manager advised he would contact the Anoka County Parks Department since they do own the island. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to accept the staff report on the 1991 Residential Reforestation Program and to continue the program in the spring of 1992. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager advised the Council that continuation of the Residential Reforestation Program will be part of the 1992 budget process. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS F O_ R WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1990 -24. CONTRACT 1991 -R The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Water SIide Improvement Project No. 1990 -24, Contract 1991 -R, noting that in accordance with Council approval, Mjorud Architecture has prepared plans and specifications for construction of a water slide in the Community Center swimming pool area. The City Manager also noted the Building Inspector's review of the Community Center has indicated the need for "code corrections" with an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000. These will be needed, whether the water slide is constructed or not. Staff will submit a separate report regarding these improvements. The Director of Public Works presented an overhead diagram of the revised configuration of the water slide. The revision includes a reverse loop rather than two Ioops in the same direction. The revision was recommended by staff following discussions with the architect and other water slide owners who reported that a reverse loop added considerable appeal to users. The revised plans have received preliminary approval from the required approval agencies. Risk management issues have been addressed by the architect and the Director of Recreation. To stay on schedule and to meet the desired installation time period of mid to late December, the Director of Public Works and Director of Recreation ec eation have P P r 0 osed to open bids for the project on October 16 and award the bid on October 21. P Councilmember Rosene expressed appreciation for the design and landscaping proposed for the swimming pool area, noting he had been to the Shoreview Community Center and felt the Iandscaping adds a great deal to the ambience. The Mayor raised a discussion on the revised configuration and questioned the exit ladder being clear across the width of the pool from where the slide enters the water. 9/23/91 -14- The Director of Public Works advised the Council the configuration was recommended by the architect and representatives from the State Board of Health, and is in compliance with the Board's safety requirements and regulations. Strict specifications are placed on the point of entry, exit, water depth, and the angle at which the users discharge off the slide and into the pool. The Director of Public Works further added the configuration still allows for use of the shallow end for younger swimmers and the deep end for advanced swimmers. Use of the water slide would not restrict either of these activities. The City Manager advised the Council that representatives from the State Board of Health were very helpful and positive in providing good information based on other successful community ty water slides. He noted e this revised configuration provides for maximum usage of the pool, however, lap swimming lanes will continue to be restricted during certain time periods. The Council further discussed the revised configuration, including liability issues, safety markers, exit ladders, revenues received from the different swimming activities, as well as programs of other metropolitan area community swimming pools and water slides. The Mayor advised the Council he had received a letter from Diane Johnson regarding the swimming pool and water slide, and felt it made several good points regarding such things as fees and users. He summarized her letter stating the City has an opportunity to capitalize on its olympic -sized pool by properly marketing several swimming - related functions to serve the younger swimmers, water slide riders, families, and lap swimmers. In response to the City Manager's comment that the goal of the installation of the water side is to increase overall revenues to reduce the City's subsidy of the pool, the Mayor recommended that all swimming activities be given equal time and priority in the pool schedule. The Director of Public Works reviewed the desired time frame of the October bid process to allow for installation during the minimal -use period in mid to late December. In response to the Mayor's recommendation that two lap swimming lanes be marked and available at all open swim times, Councilmember Pedlar pointed out this issue should be addressed by the risk management manager. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -232 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, and recommended that staff prepare additional information for the Council including laws, safety markers, risk management issues, and proposed swimming - related activities schedules: 9/23/91 -15. I RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING - WORK PERFORMED FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE 165TH AVENUE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1991 -03 CONTRACT 1991 -D The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Work Performed for Humboldt Avenue /65th Avenue Landscaping Improvement Project No. 1991 -05, Contract 1991 -D, noting that Councilmember Rosene had asked to have it removed from the consent agenda. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question on the health of the trees that were planted, the City Manager responded that it appears the trees are recovering to good health; and if they do not, however, Greenworks, Inc., the landscaper, will be responsible to replace them. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -233 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE /65TH AVENUE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -D The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION OPPOSING CERTAIN STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1991 The City Manager presented a Resolution Opposing Certain Standards Included in the Proposed Lead Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991 The Director of Public Works reviewed the resolution, noting the American Water Works Association recently alerted its members to proposed federal legislation which could have an impact on the Brooklyn Center Water Utility. The proposed Lead Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991 would significantly change the lead in water regulations recently promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. He further stated the resolution expresses the Council's support of achievable lead standards but opposition to the proposed tap water lead limit. The amendment as proposed would require if just one sample exceeded 10 parts per billion for lead, then additional corrosion 9/23/91 -16- 0 control would be required. it is virtually certain that one sample will exceed the proposed standard. The result of the proposed legislation is that most, if not all, water utilities will be required to increase corrosion control. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -234 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption and recommended that staff contact Congressman Sikorski's staff regarding this issue: RESOLUTION OPPOSING CERTAIN STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1991 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. A_ DJOURNMENT 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 10:58 p.m. Deputy City Clerk p �' ty Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Peggy McNabb Northern Counties Secretarial Service 9/23/91 -17- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date %D 7 91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission No. 91018 - PDQ Food Stores, Inc. DEPT. APPROVAL: 4 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. 91018 is a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. to construct a 2,400 square foot gas • station /convenience store /car wash on the parcel of land located at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and T.H. 252. Attached are copies of the Planning Commission minutes from September 12, 1991 and September 26, 1991; The Planning Commission information sheet from September 12, 1991; a map of the area; various plans indicating the PDQ proposal; a copy of a recently received letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation offering comments regarding this and plan and its relation to T.H. 252; and Planning Commission Resolution 91 -5 recommending denial of this application. The Planning Commission considered this proposal at its September 12, 1991 meeting at which time they sought to encourage the applicant to modify the plans particularly with respect to their proposed access to the site from the frontage road, the design of the site to better lead patrons to access the property from a shared access to the east and other items leading to potential congestion problems on the public streets in the immediate vicinity. The applicants were unwilling to consider the suggested modifications to the site plan. The Planning Commission, therefore recommended that the staff prepare a resolution for their consideration at their September 27, 1991 meeting recommending denial of application 91018 on the grounds that the standards for special use permits could not be met. Following review and discussion of a proposed resolution on September 27, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 91 -5 recommending denial of this application. This application involves a special use permit which required a public hearing by the Planning Commission. The City Council traditionally opens their meetings for public comments on any items that the Planning Commission holds public hearings. We have therefore sent notices of the City Council's consideration of this application to all of those receiving notices of the Planning Commission's public hearing. RECOMMENDATION As indicated above the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this application through Resolution No. 91 -5. If the City Council concurs with this recommendation and • determines that this matter should be denied, it is then recommended that the staff be directed to prepare a resolution outlining the history and facts of this application and the reason and rationale for denial to be brought back to the City Council for their consideration. 2 ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 91017 (Dennis and Gloria Cardinal) Following further discussion on the appeal, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 91017 on the grounds that the parking of the tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:17 p.m. and resumed at 9:35 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 91018 (PDQ Food Stores Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by PDQ Food Stores for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store /car wash at the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91018, attached). The Secretary added that the staff have met with and discussed the plans with the applicant and their representatives. He stated that staff do not believe that it is necessary to have nine pump islands and that it is certainly possible to eliminate one access on the frontage road. He also reviewed with the Commission a cross section of the proposed development relative to homes along Willow Lane. Commissioner Mann noted that the property is located in the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor and asked what would happen if a gasoline spill occurred on the site, drained into the storm sewer and drained directly into the Mississippi River above the Minneapolis water intake. The Secretary pointed out that all storm sewer lines drain into the Mississippi River and that normal procedures would be undertaken if there was a gasoline spill. Commissioner Mann asked whether the site was large enough to require a holding pond. The Secretary responded in the negative. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary showed the different routes into the gas station site, depending on the point of origin. Commissioner Holmes asked whether traffic was only one -way to the east of the traffic bubble in 66th Avenue North or whether it was two -way. The Secretary responded that it was two -way traffic. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding stacking for the car wash, the Secretary reviewed the circulation pattern on the site and explained that the car wash traffic would move in a clockwise direction. He recommended that the second bay for the future car wash be eliminated for the time being. He stated that if there was a desire to add on a second bay in the future, it could be brought in at that time. Chairperson Malecki asked about the capacity of the 9 -12 -91 8 water line. The Secretary stated that he was not certain, but that is something that would be worked out with the City Engineer. The Secretary stated that the staff had started its to review this plan based on the Fina plan which was approved last year. He stated that that plan met certain basic concerns of the staff in its design. He stated that the plan that has been proposed departs significantly from that plan. Commissioner Mann asked whether the area in question was within the commercial and industrial study area for redevelopment. The Secretary pointed out that a land use study of this area was done two years ago while the Fina application was still active. He noted that the recommended alternative that resulted from that study could not work with the plan that has been proposed. He added that he did not think that this necessarily meant the rejection of the plan. Regarding the replat of the property, the Secretary stated that this was the responsibility of the owner who had run into some problems filing the plat at Hennepin County. He stated that these problems should be resolved in the relatively near future and that the plat should be processed fairly routinely. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jim Merila, an engineer representing PDQ, then addressed the Commission at considerable length. He introduced other representatives from PDQ and pointed out that PDQ is a locally operated, family owned business. He noted that there are about 30 stations in the Metro area. He explained that PDQ was originally a food store chain that has expanded into gasoline and car wash operations. He stated that the car wash is a minor part of the local operation, that only about 10% of the gas customers use the car wash. Mr. Merila noted that they had worked with the staff for some time to come up with a plan. He made comparison to the Fina plan, noting that the Fina plan had an attached car wash and the main building on the south side of the site. He stated that the applicants have looked at 10 different layouts, but that they keep coming back to the one that is proposed for visibility and convenience. Relative to the main building being high and towards 66th, Mr. Merila pointed out that the height of the proposed building is only 6 above that of the existing building. He stated that the elevation difference relative to 66th is too great to have an access to the joint driveway further north than proposed. Mr. Merila pointed out that the driveway location onto the frontage road is 75' from the property corner and that the Zoning Ordinance only requires a minimum of 40' from the property corner. He noted that the old Shell Oil Station had four driveways in this location. He also pointed out that Atkins Mechanical closed three of those accesses when it reoccupied the building. He stated that moving the access further to the south would result in conflicts with the parking in front of the building. He stated that the building 9 -12 -91 9 location proposed is needed to provide visibility and convenient access to the site. Mr. Merila stated that he had a traffic consultant look at the access arrangement to the site and that the consultant does not see a problem. He stated that this consultant is out of town and is unable to be at the meeting. He stated that the proposal with two driveways will allow cars to enter the site more quickly than if there was only a single driveway off the frontage road. He stated that he felt the cars would use the joint driveway and that directional signery could be added if necessary. Regarding the car wash circulation on the site, he stated that it was much easier from an internal traffic flow standpoint for the movement to be in a clockwise direction. He stated that the proposed use would not generate a large amount of traffic. He noted that the Short - Elliott Hendrickson Study of the proposed Fina site concluded that traffic impact would be minimal. He stated that the applicants had no problem with eliminating the future car wash. Mr. Merila went on to address the sidewalk in front of the building. He showed a floor plan of the building and stated that the owner would agree to keep storage of merchandise off of the front portion of the walk (west of the entrance doors on the north and south sides and along the west wall). He stated that he did want his client to have the ability to store merchandise on the remainder of the sidewalk because he did not feel this area would be used as a pedestrian way. Regarding lighting, Mr. Merila stated that the applicants would have no problem in complying with the ordinance limit on light intensity at the property line. He asked for the same consideration as was given to Superamerica across Highway 252. He stated that he did not feel that glare from the lamps beneath the canopy would really be evident. Regarding the elimination of neon on the canopy, Mr. Merila referred to the Superamerica canopy across Highway 252 and stated that it is entirely lit up. He noted that a plan had been submitted with an office building location and that it was also superimposed on a cross section that had been provided. Mr. Merila noted on the cross section that the elevation of the grade at the pump islands was basically level with the eave of the houses across Willow Lane. He stated that the fence along the easterly property line would screen out any headlights from these homes. Regarding a masonry wall along the east property line, Mr. Merila stated that they have difficulty with that suggestion due to the cost associated with a masonry wall. He stated that they felt a wood fence would provide viable screening. Commissioner Holmes then asked Mr. Merila what the hours of operation would be for the station. Mr. Merila responded that it would be open 24 hours. Commissioner Holmes asked if the car wash would also be open 24 hours. A representative of PDQ responded in the affirmative. 9 -12 -91 10 PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91018) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Richard Cameron, of 6620 Willow Lane, pointed out that space between Highway 252 and Willow Lane is tight and that the houses are going to be close to whatever is built there. He pointed out that the Superamerica Station is further away since it is on the other side of Highway 252. He stated that he was not sure that the proposal meets the qualification for impact on the neighborhood as listed in point b of Section 35 -220.2 (Special Use Standards). He stated that he did not want to see another convenience store this close to his house. He added that he was afraid of the traffic at night because of police problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Philip Dahlen, of 6518 Willow Lane, noted that the site was formerly occupied by a Shell Station, that Fina tried to get approval and gave up on their proposal because of conditions. He pointed out that traffic moving northbound on Highway 252 is moving to the left (west) and that it is hard to turn right (east) onto 66th. He also pointed out that there are police problems at the Superamerica Station and that a night time operation in the proposed location would attract the same element that is bothering Superamerica. Mr. Rod Snyder, of 6408 Willow Lane, reviewed the special use standards with the Planning Commission. He stated that there was a thin buffer between the proposed station and the residential area along Willow Lane. He stated that Atkins Mechanical was a good neighbor. He asked whether PDQ would be the same, or if different, in what way. He noted that the proposed use would be a 24 hour operation that would be lit up like a Christmas tree. He stated that, if the convenience store provided something that the neighborhood didn't have, that it would meet standard (a) of the special use standards. He observed, however, that the neighborhood already has the Superamerica Station. He stated that he did not feel that standard (b) is met at all because of the impact on the neighborhood. Regarding standard (c), he stated that he wanted to upgrade his property, but that he wouldn't be able to get his money back from the improvements. He stated that the existence of the PDQ Station would inhibit people further in improving their property. Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6550 Willow Lane, related to the Commission a recent police chase through his property and the problems that exist at the Superamerica Station. Regarding the staff recommendation for a stone fence, Mr. Jewitt stated that there was a wood fence by the trail and that it was torn down and thrown in the river. He stated that a wood fence in this location would suffer a similar fate. He asked the applicants whether they would have a security guard on duty. He asked how many cars would be generated by the proposed service station. He stated that travel 9 -12 -91 11 on Highway 252 is difficult and that people would probably move through the neighborhood to get back onto Highway 252. Mr. Jewitt noted that there are a number of kids who wait at the bus stop at 66th and West River Road. He also pointed out that the traffic light at 66th and Highway 252 does not let enough cars go through. He pointed out that a lot of money was expended to modify the intersection, but that it did no good. Mr. Jewitt asked whether the car wash would affect water pressure in the area. He also stated that the Superamerica lights are bright right now and stated that similar lights closer to his house would adversely affect him. Mr. Chris Jacobson, of PDQ, noted that there is a perceived safety and security issue in the neighborhood. He pointed out that police often hang out at PDQ Food Stores. He stated that lighting on the site would be buffered by the landscaping. He also noted that there would be video cameras in the store to discourage shoplifting. Mr. Jacobson stated that the doors to the car wash would be closed when it was in operation. He added that PDQ could close down the car wash between midnight and 6:00 a.m. if there is a noise roblem. Mr. Jacobson recommended moving the driveways P g s y onto the frontage road 15' to 20' further north in order to allow cars to move more directly into the path of the pump islands. He stated that he had a problem with the traffic movement into the site and asked that the accesses be moved further to the north. He stated that a masonry wall would be expensive. He stated that PDQ would build a wall if someone else would pay for it. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there would be any impact on water pressure as a result of the car wash. An unidentified representative of PDQ stated that there would be no impact. Mr. Jewitt again asked how many cars per day would be generated by the station. Mr. Jacobson answered that they had projected about 920 cars per day. Mr. Jerry Archer, also of PDQ, stated that the afternoon rush hour would be the peak time as opposed to the morning rush hour. He stated that he did not think the station would create that much of an impact on 66th Avenue North. Mr. Archer also stated that cars could exit out the front of the site onto the frontage road and turn right on 66th and go around the traffic bubble. He discussed traffic movements at some length with Mr. Jewitt. Mr. Jacobson stated that PDQ would build at their own expense an acceleration lane onto Highway 252 from 66th Avenue North if that were necessary. It was pointed out that there is already an acceleration lane and that it is used by buses. Mr. Archer pointed out that the zoning of the site was the same as for Superamerica. He stated that he felt PDQ should be allowed. Mr. Pat Murphy, of 6524 Willow Lane, stated that cars would not easily use the joint driveway with the property to the east, but would circle the block. He also stated that there would be cars backed up onto 66th unable to get onto Highway 252. 9 -12 -91 12 Chairperson Malecki then briefly discussed the process with the Secretary. The Secretary stated that if the same design is submitted by PDQ, staff would recommend denial on the grounds that the standards for a special use permit are not met. He stated, however, that if the design were more similar to the Fina plan, the City would probably have to approve the use. Commissioner Holmes stated that he had problems with egress movements from the site. He also stated that Superamerica does have glare at night. He expressed concern regarding the 24 hour car wash and concern with the problems in the entire neighborhood. He added, however, that he was sympathetic to the option of having a detached car wash. Commissioner Holmes stated that he was in favor of a redesign of the plan and asked why the City Council had reversed the Planning commission's recommendation for denial of the Fina plan. The Secretary stated that they could review the record on that. Commissioner Mann stated that she did not feel the special use standards were met and that the options for the applicant were either to work with the staff on a redesign or to be denied. Commissioner Bernards stated that he was not enamored with the idea of a service station at that site. He stated that he felt it is a mistake to pursue it and that he did not like the Fina proposal either. He stated that he sympathized with the neighbors. He pointed out that the Superamerica Station has buffers, but that this site does not. He also noted that the neighborhood demographics have changed. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Bernards if he would favor the development if it were redesigned. Commissioner Bernards responded in the negative. Chairperson Malecki acknowledged that the zoning of the property allows for a gas station, but that the service station is a special use and that the applicants seem to be bucking what the staff recommends. She stated that this proposal is different from Superamerica because it is closer to the R1 zone. She stated that she did generally favor an ordinance amendment to allow a detached car wash. The Secretary stated that if the Commission were disposed to deny the application, the staff would recommend tabling the matter so that a resolution can be prepared with specific findings. If the applicant is willing to redesign, he said, they should work with the points listed in the staff report. He also noted that the ordinance amendment on the car wash would apply to other locations as well. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Commission if they wished to amend the ordinance regarding car washes. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had no problem with that proposal. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING A DETACHED CAR WASH Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to direct the staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow a 9 -12 -91 13 detached car wash building with exterior treatment and quality of construction matching that of the primary building. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. Commissioner Ainas cited a possible conflict of interest as his reason for abstaining. Commissioner Mann stated that she could possibly support the proposal if it were redesigned. She stated that she felt the social problem was being worked on and that it would eventually go away. Commissioner Holmes stated that he agreed with Commissioner Bernards. He stated that it was a problem area and that a change was being proposed that would adversely affect that area. He stated that he would recommend tabling the application with direction to redesign. The Secretary, in referring to the points listed in the staff report, stated that if there is congestion resulting from the operation, it should be contained on site and not on the public street. Chairperson Malecki stated that she favored one access onto the frontage road. Commissioner Holmes suggested that the conditions that applied to Fina be considered in the redesign of this proposal. Mr. Jim Merila, representing PDQ, stated that PDQ would like the application to go on to the City Council with a denial if necessary. The Secretary stated that he would recommend that the denial be by resolution and that the matter be tabled so that such a resolution can be prepared. He asked Mr. Merila if PDQ was stating that it is unwilling to redesign the plans. Mr. Jacobson, with PDQ, stated that the points outlined in the staff report are ridiculous and too costly. He stated that they would make their case to the City Council. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91018 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Bernards to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial regarding Application No. 91018 on the grounds that the standards for a special use permit are not met, particularly standards a and b and also in light of the fact that t applicant as state d their he a lic n h g PP unwillingness to revise the plans. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. Commissioner Ainas cited a potential conflict of interest as his reason for abstaining from the vote. 9 -12 -91 14 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Ella Sander, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson would be late to the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the September 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91018 (PDQ FOOD STORES, INC) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a resolution recommending denial of the proposed PDQ gasoline station/ convenience store /car wash on the grounds that the standards for a special use permit have not been met. The Secretary reviewed with the Commission the consideration of the matter that occurred on at the September 12, 1991 meeting. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the draft resolution. The Secretary concluded by noting that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting, but notices have been sent to property owners and the applicant that the resolution would be considered at this evening's meeting. Commissioner Holmes asked whether it was possible to validate some of the points in the draft resolution. The Secretary stated that those points were gleaned from the discussion at the last meeting and that they represent the concerns of the neighborhood and of the Planning Commission regarding the proposal. He stated that the applicant has failed to show that these concerns are not real and therefore, they are legitimately part of the resolution. The Planner also noted that the motion directing the staff to prepare the resolution from the previous meeting specifically indicated that standards (a) and (b) had not been met and that those standards are reflected in some of the points of the resolution. Commissioner Bernards asked whether safety is referred to in any of the points. The Secretary answered that point (1) regarding traffic congestion certainly implied a safety concern. Chairperson Malecki noted that the resolution indicates that not all plans for this parcel would be rejected, just the one that has been submitted to date. 9/26/91 1 Planning Commission Minutes Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether they had anything new to add. Mr. Jim Merila, an engineer representing PDQ stated that they had nothing to add, that they did not agree with the resolution but would not contest it at this point. Chairperson Malecki asked the neighbors whether they had anything new to add. Mr. Rod Snyder of 6408 Willow Lane stated that he appreciated the resolution and the staff input into the Commission's deliberations. He stated that he would feel more comfortable with point number (4) if it made reference to distance between the proposed service station site and the residential area along Willow Lane as compared to the distance from Superamerica to that residential area. He stated that the land would eventually be developed and that some sort of commercial use will come close to residential property. Chairperson Malecki noted that the public hearing had been closed and asked the Commission for a motion on the draft resolution. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91 -5 REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY PDO FOOD STORES, INC. Member Ella Sander introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION 91018 SUBMITTED BY PDO FOOD STORES, INC The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lowell Ainas and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Malecki, commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. The following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. OTHER BUSINESS A) Ordinance Amendment on Detached Car Washes The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a draft ordinance amendment to allow detached car washes at service station sites. He reviewed the direction by the Planning Commission to prepare the ordinance amendment and also reviewed the ordinance language. The Secretary added that this section of the ordinance also has to do with outside display at service stations and stated that the Planning Commission may wish to discuss that aspect of the ordinance as well. He noted some concerns with outside display such as height of display and whether it should be restricted to a certain portion of the building. He noted that the ordinance limits display to the area within four feet of the building. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that there are four communities in the Twin Cities area which actually require a detached car wash and that a variance is needed in those communities in order to attach the car wash. 9/26/91 2 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Sander stated that the Superamerica station at 66th and Highway 252 has become very messy in that there are displays all over the site. The Secretary stated that it could be an enforcement problem as opposed to a problem with the ordinance. Commissioner Sander stated that she did not feel display should be allowed at the pump islands. The Secretary pointed out that existing service stations would probably be grandfathered in their right to continue such displays. There followed further discussion of display at service stations. In answer to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that there could be a separate enclosed area such as a masonry enclosure for tires that would be allowed to store either new or used merchandise. He stated that the City could approve another material for such an enclosure as long it was "compatible" with the principal building. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DETACHED CAR WASHES AT SERVICE STATION SITES Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment to allow detached car washes at service station sites. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS A) MAXFIELD RESEARCH COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL STUDY The Secretary noted that the Commission had received material on the Maxfield Research Study on Commercial and Industrial markets in Brooklyn Center and also some staff comments on that study. He noted that the study recommends some changes in land use that are not entirely consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that some decision would have to be made on how to reconcile these two documents. The Secretary noted that there would be a joint meeting with the City Council possibly on October 17, 1991 and that tonight's discussion items and the recent sign ordinance amendment would be discussed at that meeting. Commissioner Johnson arrives at 8:11 p.m. B) MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SETBACKS The Secretary then discussed with the Commission the ordinance requirement for a 50' setback from major thoroughfares. He noted that Mr. Dave Nelson who was present at the meeting was working on a redevelopment of the northwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that there is need for additional right -of -way in that area and this right -of -way acquisition would push the development further to the north. He noted that there are single family homes to the north and west of the site. He stated that some reduction of the setback from 69th and from Brooklyn Boulevard would allow the station to be set back further from the single family area. 9/26/91 3 Planning Commission Minutes The Secretary went on to note that the Comprehensive Plan recommends land use conversion to commercial retail in some areas of Brooklyn Boulevard and that, in other areas between those nodes, office and mid - density residential is recommended. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that, as single family homes are eliminated, the commercial development should extend back to the next street. The Secretary asked whether it was desirable to keep deep setbacks along Brooklyn Boulevard or whether it would be appropriate to abandon such a deep setback with the shallow lots that front on Brooklyn Boulevard. He asked generally whether the City still needed a major thoroughfare setback in commercial and industrial areas. The Secretary went on to state that the City can look at some reduction in setbacks under a Planned Unit Development (PUD), but that not all development and redevelopment is going to be a PUD. The Secretary added that if buildings are moved closer to Brooklyn Boulevard, it may have some impact on the movement of traffic along Brooklyn Boulevard and the feeling of openness as one travels along that thoroughfare. He stated that he did not believe it would not be appropriate to grant a variance for the development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard without looking up and down the entire boulevard. Chairperson Malecki then invited Mr. Dave Nelson to speak. Mr. Nelson stated that if the City was going to have redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard with the shallow lots along it, that it would have to look at its ordinances and possibly revise them. Commissioner Bernards asked how shallow these lots are. Mr. Nelson stated that they are often between 100' - 125' deep. He pointed out that with a 50' setback to the building, there is nothing left on the lot to provide a buffer adjacent to the residential to the rear. He advocated putting the building forward toward the street and putting the parking and buffer behind the building adjacent to the residential area. Chairperson Malecki asked how far TCF was from Xerxes. The Secretary stated that he did not think it was 50' back from the right -of -way line and pointed out that Xerxes is a major thoroughfare in that location. The Planner then discussed with the Commission some of the issues that go into the discussion of setbacks and development along Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that the existing Comprehensive Plan recommends that redevelopment take up at least an entire block back to the next street from Brooklyn Boulevard to allow for larger developments. He stated that what may be considered with the reduction in the setback is an abandonment of that policy and looking at redevelopment only of the tier of lots adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that most commercial retail development is set further back in the lot with the parking out in front so that customers come to the front door. He stated that this type of development would probably continue even if the setback for commercial uses was reduced. The Planner also noted that the Maxfield Study indicates that Brooklyn Center is somewhat in competition with Brooklyn Park for development along Brooklyn Boulevard. He has pointed out that Brooklyn Center is at a disadvantage since the land in Brooklyn Center is occupied by single family homes whereas the land in Brooklyn Park for the most part is vacant and therefore, cheaper to acquire and develop. 9/26/91 4 Planning Commission Minutes He concluded by saying that it might be appropriate for the City to concentrate on an area that has the highest potential for redevelopment and to assist in acquiring and redeveloping that area as something of a demonstration as to how redevelopment could occur along Brooklyn Boulevard. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding house conversions, the Secretary acknowledged that there had been a couple house conversions along Brooklyn Boulevard, but that he did not recommend them nor are they recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Johnson noted the area around 61st Avenue North and the difficulties of getting access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that it is good to have access off a side street rather than Brooklyn Boulevard. C) ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ABUTMENT OF CERTAIN USES WITH R1, R2 AND R3 ZONING DISTRICTS The Secretary then brought up the subject of the conflict in certain circumstances with the provision which restricts certain uses from being adjacent to R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. He noted that at the northwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, there is a gas station that has a minor abutment with R1 property to the northwest. He stated that those who want to redevelop the property cannot do anything with it related to a service station as long as the ordinance prohibits such an abutment. He asked whether there might be things that can be done to mitigate that abutment as opposed to ruling it out altogether. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the provision prohibits the abutment with duplexes and apartments. The Secretary explained that the abutment restriction pertains to R1, R2 and R3 districts (single family, two family and townhouse) . He noted that for a standard retail use adjacent to a single family district, there is a 35' buffer required. He added, however, that certain uses are simply not allowed to abut at all. The Planner noted that this evening's hearing was instructive as to people's attitudes about how far they would like to be from service stations. The Secretary agreed, but added that there a number of non - conforming situations around the city that were built before that ordinance went into effect. Commissioner Sander stated that gas stations have changed alot since that ordinance came into affect. They are much bigger now and provide more diversity of services than those of that time. Chairperson Malecki stated that size is also a consideration. She stated that she did not have a problem with the gas station at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, but would have a problem with a PDQ type station. The Planner pointed out that just such a redevelopment was desired for that property, but that it could not take place as long as the ordinance prohibited a service station from abutting residential. Chairperson Malecki recommended keeping the abutment restriction. 9/26/91 5 Planning Commission Minutes The discussion returned to Brooklyn Boulevard briefly. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt it was necessary to go back two tiers of lots to get a decent development along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson asked whether if it were P ossible to have different rules in different areas. The Secretary stated that he felt that residential needs a greater setback than commercial for a major thoroughfare. He added that there may be a need for a C3 zoning district to allow certain very intense types of commercial uses. Commissioner Johnson asked whether it was possible to vary the rules within a certain zone. The Secretary stated that it was possible with a PUD, but that certain findings would have to be made and that mitigative measures would have to be employed. The Planner noted that the status quo in residential development is actually to put the house as close to the street as possible in order to maximized the rear yard, whereas in commercial development the trend is to put the building as far back in order to provide parking in front and bring customers to the front door. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that the idea of reducing commercial major thoroughfare setbacks may be fighting the tide. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the rules have not changed over the years pertaining to commercial development. The Secretary answered that they have changed significantly from the 1966 Comprehensive Plan but not that much since the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, although there have been some changes related to development along major thoroughfares. In response for a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Dave Nelson stated that it was not economically feasible to spend as much money as people want for their single family homes in order to buy the land for office development. He stated that the money would never be recovered with the rents that are currently being paid for office space. The Planner noted that redeveloping a commercial site is probably even more expensive. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m. 9/26/91 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91018 Applicant: PDQ Food Stores, Inc. Location: Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. gas station /convenience store and a 945 sq. ft. detached car wash on the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The property in question has been approved for C2 zoning (subject to filing of the replat of this property) and is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant C1 zoned land (again, subject to filing of the plat) on the east, by the Brookdale Motel on the south, and by the West River Road frontage road on the west. Highway 252 lies further to the west. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. The proposed station would have nine (9) pump islands, six to the north and three to the south of the building. The proposed detached car wash is not consistent with Section 35 -414.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that facilities for washing "must be enclosed within the principal building." The applicant requests that the City consider an ordinance amendment to allow separate facilities for car washes. This request will be reviewed at the end of the report. A review of the site and building plan follows. Access /Parking The proposed plan calls for three accesses to the site, two 30 wide driveways off the West River Road frontage road and one 30' wide access onto a driveway to be constructed on the parcel to the east which will access onto 66th Avenue North at the median opening. The driveway on the parcel to the east will become a joint access when that parcel is developed. The PDQ access to this joint driveway is proposed approximately 225' south of 66th Avenue North. Staff have recommended to the applicant that the access to this joint driveway be further north as was the case with the Fina plan that was approved last year. We have also taken the position that no access off the frontage road should be closer to 66th than the current access to Atkins Mechanical. The northerly proposed access is about 25' closer. It is our belief that the proposed access arrangement is not conducive to cars exiting the site via the joint driveway to the east; rather it appears that many drivers, especially those that use the car wash, will exit the site onto the frontage road and will travel north to 66th Avenue North where they will have to turn right and make a U -turn around the traffic bubble. This movement we believe will interfere with cars turning right off Highway 252 onto 66th Avenue North. Since Highway 252 is a major highway, traffic congestion at this critical point is unacceptable. Standard (d) from Section 35 -220 regarding 9 -12 -91 1 Application No. 91018 continued special uses requires that "adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets." Because of the potential for congestion at a critical location, we do not believe the proposed plan meets the standards for a special use permit. One of the things driving the design of the PDQ site is the desire on the part of the applicant to have the main building as high and as close to 66th as possible. This makes the grade differential between the gas pumps and 66th too steep for a workable access drive. We have suggested a redesign of the plan to put the building or more of the gas pumps further south and to eliminate one access onto the frontage road in order to make exiting onto the frontage road less likely. The building can also be somewhat lower. The guiding principal in the staff's position is that the site should be designed so that cars are led to exit onto 66th Avenue North rather than on the frontage road. The guiding principal of the applicant's plan appears to be: maximize visibility and facilitate traffic flow to the detached car wash. The applicant's original plan had no access onto 66th at all. This plan is only marginally better. As for parking, the total building area on the site requires 18 parking stalls. The addition of a future car wash bay would bring the total parking requirement to 24 stalls. The plan proposes 13 striped stalls and nine (9) additional stalls on the perimeter of the pump islands. There is room for stacking of at least six cars at the proposed car wash bay and at least four additional stacking spaces at the future car wash bay. It appears that, if the car wash building were ever converted to retail use, there would be adequate space on the site to provide the necessary additional parking stalls. The plan, therefore, does not appear to overbuild the site. It should be noted that circulation to and through the car wash will be in a clockwise rather than a counterclockwise fashion on the site. With the car wash exit close to the southerly access off the frontage road, it appears likely to us that car wash traffic will tend to exit onto the frontage road and that congestion at 66th and Highway 252 will become more likely. Otherwise, cars may go south around the block onto Willow Lane. This is also undesirable. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for 23 Profusion Crab trees in the perimeter greenstrips on the north, west, and south sides of the site. Planting beds with Dwarf Mugho Pine shrubs and Dragons Blood Sedum are to be placed at driveway openings and at the northeast and northwest corners of the parking lot. Some Techny Arborvitae shrubs are shown in the southerly greenstrip. In the green area bordering the Cl site to the east, the plan proposes seven Black 9 -12 -91 2 Application No. 91018 continued Hills Spruce, three Hackberry trees, a few shrubs and a 6' high wood screen fence. A 6' high screen fence would also be placed on the opposite side of the common drive to block headlights until a building is built on the C1 site. The approval of the Fina plan included a requirement for a 6' high masonry wall. The Commission should discuss whether a wood fence is acceptable in this location. The trees will be planted on the east side of the fence to provide visual relief. It will be necessary, however, as the Spruce trees grow, to trim them up to the top of the fence because they will be planted adjacent to it. The total point value of all plantings is approximately 155 points. The site is 1.025 acres in area and the landscape point system requires 82 points. The plan, therefore, complies. Sod is indicated in all perimeter green areas and in the boulevard. Underground irrigation is to be provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The site will be highest at the floor of the main building and will drain to the perimeter. A catch basin in the frontage road, one in the parking area north of the car wash, and one at the southeast corner of the parking lot are connected by a 12 11 diameter storm sewer line that will flow east under the southerly portion of the C1 site to a City storm sewer line in Willow Lane. Another catch basin at the northeast corner of the site will be connected to the storm sewer in Willow Lane by a separate 12" line flowing eastward. The plan proposes a 4 watermain service for both the main building and the car wash coming off the main in 66th Avenue North. This may not be adequate to serve both domestic and fire protection purposes. A 6 sanitary sewer service will be connected to the main in 66th. Concrete curb and gutter (B612) is indicated around all parking and driving areas. The grading and utility plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Buildings /Canopy Both the main convenience store building and the car wash building are to have a brick exterior with a metalfascia and soffit to match the gasoline canopy. Both the car wash fascia and the canopy will have a neon accent band on the north, west and south elevations. This band may be considered to be signery and can be allowed on the car wash fascia, but not on the canopy since that would make the canopy a freestanding sign. The plans propose 400 watt super metal halide surface mounted light fixtures attached to the under side of the canopy. Staff have asked that the applicant recess these lights so as to minimize glare projecting off the property, but the applicant has ignored this request. Light glare at night is one of the factors cited in the preamble of Section 35 -414 as necessitating special requirements for service stations. The proposed canopy is to be one large structure that will extend 9 -12 -91 3 Application No. 91018 continued continuously over the northerly six pump islands, the building and the southerly three pump islands. The plan shows that the canopy is to be attached to the main building by steel support columns. Section 35 -414.3 requires that the building and the canopy be in scale with the surroundings. The principal building is to be only 10' 8 high. The canopy is to be 18' high with 15' clearance. With the high elevation of the site, the high canopy with protruding lights we believe will cause a glare problem. We would recommend that the plans be modified to indicate recessed lighting. The proposed car wash is to have one bay at present with an area paved for a potential second bay in the future. We would recommend that any excess land area be landscaped for the present in case no future car wash bay is built. The plans also call for only a 5' wide sidewalk in front of the building and less than 4' wide on the sides. This does not allow enough room for both pedestrians and merchandise display that is common at gas stations. We recommend that either the sidewalks be widened by at least 4' or that outside display be prohibited at this site. We would prefer the wider sidewalk. Lighting/ Trash The plans call for nine 16' high light poles at various locations around the perimeter of the parking lot. While this is certainly an appropriate scale, no details have been provided on the appearance of the light fixtures or the wattage of the lamps. Trash is to be stored in an enclosure behind the northeast corner of the building. Ordinance Amendment on Detached Car Wash A detached car wash is not permitted under current ordinance. The applicant has requested in writing that the ordinance be amended (see letter attached) . The applicant cites three operational reasons why a detached car wash works best for them: " 1) The car wash is located a greater distance from the residential area. 2) The separate buildings provide for a better traffic flow pattern on the site. 3 ) An attached car wash will not allow for adequate stacking (blocks egress from gas island)." The applicant also notes that the present ordinance was written over 20 years ago when "traditional car wash facilities were in unattractive, quonset type buildings or no buildings at all." They point out, however, that in the last 10 years detached car wash facilities at service stations have become more popular as they 9 -12 -91 4 Application No. 91018 continued have become more attractive. They point out that construction materials and the detached design provide for noise attenuation, vacuum stations and stacking capacity. They conclude their letter by noting that detached car wash facilities are allowed in a number of communities, among them Blaine, Fridley, Edina, St. Louis Park, Maple Grove, and Eden Prairie. While we have not delved deeply into the original rationale for the current ordinance, we would agree that it probably derives from some of the concerns cited by the applicant. The architectural quality of the proposed car wash is and should be equal to that of the principal building. This is surely one of the key objectives of the current ordinance. We would also agree with the applicant that allowing for a detached car wash gives the greatest flexibility in designing the site for good traffic circulation and appropriate stacking. We do not agree with the site design that the applicant has submitted, but that does not necessarily mean that a better site design will automatically result if an attached car wash is required. We would recommend that the Commission discuss the question of an ordinance amendment and direct staff whether or not to prepare an ordinance amendment aiming at comparable architectural quality between car washes and principal buildings. Recommendation Because of the way we see the proposed site plan relating to the public streets, we cannot recommend approval of the application as proposed. We recommend that the Commission discuss the matters raised in this report and any other issues raised with the applicant. If the applicant is unwilling to alter the site design, we would recommend that the matter be tabled with direction to staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the application. If the applicant is willing to redesign, we would also recommend tabling with direction on what aspects need to be changed. The aspects we see a need to change are as follows: 1) No access off the frontage road closer than the existing access serving Atkins Mechanical. 2 ) A site design that clearly leads patrons to exit the site via the shared access drive leading to the median opening in 66th Avenue North. 3) Elimination of the paved area immediately north of the proposed car wash and installation of additional landscaping. 4) Widening of the sidewalk in front and to the sides of the building by at least 4 1 . 9 -12 -91 5 Application No. 91018 continued 5) Provision of lighting details and revision of the plans to indicate recessed lighting in the canopy. 6) Elimination of the neon band on the canopy. 7) Submittal of a site plan for the property to the east to verify viability of the site for future office development. Submitted by, r Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, ' Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9 -12 -91 6 II i � � � '� 1- / 111• ������� .. ������ ...1.1..1 : N 11� 1111 J .!. , 1111 111 / � ,. �.,.,.� ; � �.�., . , C •, � • • 1 III 11 111 11 1111 ■ 11 ; ' 11 11 ►������� o11 I err r1 /// 11 1 r1. ► ♦..�i�i�i�� ■ ' 1 �r .�i......� 11 � 1 III !�/ 1/11 -/ /11111 11. I /1 1 ►!�..�.�.. It / 1 1 � �' �• 1/ 11 X11 11 111 11 / 1 � � -- 11 / �� �� • .... ►♦ ..: ■■■ /1 / /// // ma n / /I / 11. 1� �I 111 ■ /t/ "'� ' �: INS ■ /1 1111 t 1/ • / // ti11■ � � , � 1111 /1 ,• 1 �1 I/ '�� ' � 'V' �'" ' �JI 1111 / ...►r �■�' ° r ■ ■■ - 1 1111 A� � 1 _ • 1 '71 1 °4 N� lJt�I f t•7 -r � es � �.�N�1� • � rl � � - . ' � 7 ✓ >ilrwc F � •' � .qea olr cv. wrv.� /y _ yylL�l.O ,•..'".a - .r /r.r �.,J f, f y t/� it./!t i 1�. 1 1 �. ..... �. �"'- N! ✓!! /Iw/ irr Yy /1 ,.rllr rf.• s ;: °i. "'• L \� �I; y �. fu�.w iui�::.ra .luw �f -""� '• ^'; -•' _1 �� � �-- 41aaw f..11.n f..... ilr fl.. F 1 l r. h O h X] t ¢ 4....... a s 1... wl. R O O 4 tw w.. fn.r I..w uw � ••�• 4 w N M1.a - 5 ! ow I s ;. i t + • as � "' .,... •' •� 'I� �'• � � W > • z N t v ..... ........... t Y SITE._.._ V s /,f• ``�— — -�� _ _ ._'` .r 'r QO�CN FR + V > _�_ ; W WEST RIVER ROAD (STATE HIGHVWY NO. 252) i _ f I LO CATION � •�x LL�11�+�+ V "lo E AND H PROPERTIES ADDITION C. R. DOC. NO. 3'`' In W � U o o of A ... ------- .0 LL MERILA & ASSOC LAT ES 2 6 N . Hi9 r I -- I I t Ln --4 I t I t � m I y D 1 a I m I I I i N • � I 0 9� Z I ( COArVE LEMW STORE cuss MSrr "° "'°"° _ = =_ M MERILA ' n SITE PLAN _ b cIaTES 1 'EI -117 BROOKLYN LEVIER. YINNEEOTt -dYi�G r2Ak ZL- ENGEJE . SIXN . IA. gs c t+ >r -- a —N f ow LAN j � ..--- '..� • _ _ � M � Li� Z cut caa I F / ! WIM - - - F.F.E. t. wiu � .. n.c ... �..u.. ~ x i I i ii 832.0 , . ....... .... _Z Q y _ WEST RIVER RQ4D (STATE HIGHW" ND. 252) - 4 .t 6 � i C� N . N19 o > 6 ■ ■ • 0 f s Aft o r- ° H 0 7] _ M 7R • 0 n o i n t I m I E Y O • • � • Y _ Ln j l � 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 O ■ O O 11 1 • F F I t CONV&VtENNMSTORE: aASa MsN •.°.�° _ _-=_ /� MERILA LANDSCAPE PLAN _ &ASSOCIATES "'•�' ' FI -IIT I SROOKLYN CENTER. i " - LY)f. } /�)� ENGKJEERWG SURVE' PLA JW6 M NNEEOTA :. — .= --- . -- �zl Fl I Li $2 PYLON SIGN ELEVATION CAR WASH FLOOR PUN CAR wAeHi =+ , ' rt-------------------------------------- I ------ - - - - -I log FFOODSTORE AND PUMP ISLAND FLOOR PUN W . " WM EILVATOM Or TM CAR WASX [AST ELCVATOM Of TIC CM WASH as .. - CS — � C CZ jl � _..i yr i > _..t ,.♦ . it SOIRH ELEVATOM Or TM r0005 M rr MOM EILYATOM Or THE W WASM I t'4 � V V ��� -�� • W[S7 [IlVATOM M T11 ro9=QK 7 3a nrVATOH Or T+C CAR WASH [ASi CLfVATOM a T, r(151QfTQR1 MOIRM: ICVaTOM Or T1C r000StOR[ _,.. �. x _ - m A m ° .:: .. .. .. A 1::: .:� ..:': ii. O .. Z .... ::. :: ... .. A ° A A { A m D .. ::. .. ..... -. ... A .. -. .. .: .. .. '.: u .. — :::. z e .. 4 -- a — — o _ ...... — _ I _ -- - - -- — — 0 ' . i r m _ .' I - D-11 v. - 1 m ° CONVENIENCE STORE, GAS A WASH r SITE SECTIONS Nf,INI ERING $I IRVEYING & PLANNING ,Di -111 BROOKLYN ' CENTER. NNESQ I ,,, I'^ -- • - -_ - -- 40 "ro tia Minnesota Department of Transportation $ Metropolitan District Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 OF TRo Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to 593 -8537 Telephone No. September 26, 1991 vX Mr. Mark J. Maloney, P.E., City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: S.P. 2748 - T.H. 252 Review of proposed PDQ plan located in the SE quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Ave. No. in Brooklyn Center Dear Mark, As per Bill Crawford 's request that I have reviewed the above referenced plan as it relates to T.H. 252. In regard to the proposed plan I have the following concerns: The proposed plan indicates moving the existing driveway ,closer to 66th Ave. We feel that the existing driveway should not be moved any closer to 66th Ave. No. as it would reduce the storage area for cars turning left into the entrance and cars waiting to turn onto 66th Ave. No. Because traffic from the existing frontage road wanting access to 66th Ave. N. can only go one way, every effort should be made to encourage traffic to use the proposed street that intersects 66th Ave. No. about 190' east of the inplace frontage road intersection. This would greatly reduce the possibility of a wrong way move onto 66th Ave. No. into this busy intersection. The intersection of the existing frontage road and 66th Ave. No. is only detached from T.H. 252 by about 100'. Normally we need about 300' of detachment for a safe, efficient intersection. Therefore, every effort should be made to reduce the traffic using the intersection. One way to do this is to keep the first entrance from the frontage road set back from 66th Ave. No. as far as possible. It is suggested that the proposed development be designed to promote the use of the proposed street (between the existing frontage road and Willow Lane) for traffic leaving the site. !NINNFSMA L"o An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Mark Maloney Page Two September 25, 1991 It is suggested that the proposed plat be submitted to Mn /DOT for a formal plat review as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505. This review process normally takes about 30 days from when the plat is reviewed. Information regarding plat review and submittal is contained in the enclosed booklet entitled "Local Government Guide ". If you have any questions in regard to this review please feel free to call me or numbers listed on page 17 of the guide. Sincerely, Evan R. Green Project Manager i Member Ella Sander introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -5 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY PDQ FOOD STORES, INC. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 91018 was submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc., seeking site and building plan and special use permit approval to build a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the five standards for Special Use Permits listed in said section of the Ordinance are met; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Commission at its September 12, 1991 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the majority of the Planning Commission believes it is necessary to revise the plans submitted by PDQ Foods, Inc. in the following manner as a means of meeting the five standards for Special Use Permits: 1. Provide an access off the frontage road no closer to 66th Avenue North than the existing access serving the Atkins Mechanical site. 2. Provide a site design that clearly leads patrons to exit the site via a shared access leading to the existing median opening on 66th Avenue North. 3. Consideration of site design that might lead to the elimination of some gasoline dispensing pumps which would lead to better circulation on the site. 4. Consideration of only one access point from the frontage road serving this site. 5. Modification to the plans for the canopy to provide recessed lights to avoid light glare to the neighboring property. 6. Elimination of the neon band on the canopy. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -5 7. Modification to the plan to include a minimum 6' high masonry wall to provide appropriate screening of the site to the residential property to the east; and WHEREAS, the applicant, during the public hearing, indicated it was not willing to revise the site and building plans in accordance with the above recommendations; and WHEREAS, testimony taken from neighboring property owners raises concerns that the PDQ plan will not promote and enhance the general welfare and may be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort by citing recent problems experienced at a nearby convenience store /gasoline station; and WHEREAS, testimony taken from neighboring property owners also raises concerns that the PDQ plan will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area and may well lead to diminishing property values in the neighborhood and be an impediment to the upgrading of residential property in the immediate area; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the proposal in light of the staff report, testimony received, and the standards for a special use permit contained in Section 35 -220.2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend that Planning Commission Application No. 91018 be denied on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated by evidence that the standards for a special use permit contained in Section 35 -220.2 have been met. Specifically, the Commission finds that the standards are not or will not be met on the basis of the following: 1. The arrangement of the access drives on the proposed site plan does not lead motorists to exit the site via the joint driveway to the median opening in 66th Avenue North. The result of this arrangement will be for many cars exiting the site onto the frontage road and creating traffic congestion at the intersection of the frontage road and 66th Avenue North immediately east of Highway 252. This is deemed to pose an unacceptable risk of congestion affecting Highway 252. An appropriate access design for this site would have only one access onto the frontage road no closer to 66th Avenue North than the existing access to Atkins Mechanical. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -5 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a gas station/ convenience store /car wash will not promote and enhance the general public welfare since there is already a gas station/ convenience store at the same intersection across Highway 252. 3. The presence of another 24 hour gas station /convenience store in the neighborhood may attract more crime in the area similar to what has been experienced recently at Superamerica across Highway 252. 4. The lighting of the canopy and the noise and fumes from the service station will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted. It is also believed that property values in this area may suffer if the service station is built as proposed. 5. The establishment of the proposed gas station /convenience store /car wash will be a disincentive for property owners in the area to maintain and upgrade their properties because of its negative impact. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the standards for a special use permit continued in Section 35 -220.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Date Chdirperson ATTE / o .-.-t O �� LJ C4-tAZ--A-_ Secretary The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lowell Ainas and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann, and Holmes and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Mewing Date October 7, 1991 Agenda Item Number_ / j2.Z REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GAMBLING REGULATIONS DEPT. APPR James Lindsay, ief of Police MANAGER'S RE COMI��NDA No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) • Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances pertains to liquor licenses. Section 11 -717 regulates charitable gambling allowed in on -sale premises. This section sets the rules and regulations that pertain to the liquor establishment. Those pertaining to the charitable organization are contained in Section 23 -1900. These sections were determined several years ago, when the State of Minnesota wrote legislation to allow the sale of pull -tabs in on -sale liquor establishments under certain conditions. At that time, members of City staff met with members of the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to determine these criteria. Part of the criteria for these licenses established by the State's Gambling Control Board are that the charitable organization may only pay the liquor establishment a rent which cannot be based on the proceeds. The liquor establishment is not allowed to collect any other fees from the charitable organization. The rent is to include any expenses the liquor establishment may wish to charge the charitable organization. The State has sent a maximum allowance for this rent and has raised it several times over the years. The City is allowed to set a lower maximum for this cost if it wishes. Brooklyn Center originally set this limit at $100 per week. At that time the maximum the State p , allowed was approximately the same amount. The State did raise this limit once in 1989 to $600 per month and has recently raised the maximum to $1,000 per month. The Lions club did not realize the City had a lower limit which pertained and has been paying $600 per month since the State raised its limit. The Lions Club has asked the City to review this policy and requested the limit be raised to $700 per month. The letter from the Lions outlining this request is attached for your information. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council approve the ordinance amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances regarding gambling regulations for a first reading. 9� 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 Chapter it regarding Charitable Gambling Regulations in On -Sale Liquor establishments. 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 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GAMBLING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 11 -717. GAMBLING REGULATIONS. 2a. Maximum rent that may be charged is [$100 per week.] $700 per month. 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.) � BROOKLYN CEN�E� L�3NS CLUB ���� PO BOX 29O92 ~~ BROOKLYH CEHT�R MN 55429 MR .�ERRY SPL�NTER C�TY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CEHTER DE�R JERRY Of IV STA�E -EGISLATURE HAS RAISED ��E �AX�MUM � �ENT FOR CHARITABLE GAMBLING ORGANIZA�I3MS,F�OM 6OO.00 PE� MON�� � �O ^,OOO.00 PE� MDNTH. �E UERE PAYING T�E MAX DF 60O.00, BUT U� HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY CHIEF JIM LINDSAY THAT WE �AVE B�EN IN VIOLATION. �E WERE UNAWARE THAT T�E C�TY ORDINANCE HAD A MAXI��� OF 4OO.0O. THE BROOKLYN CENTER LI�HS CLUB W�ULD LIKE THE CITY COUHCIL � TO RAISE THE MAXIMUM RENT FROM 4OO.00 TO 7OO.00 PER MO�TH AT EAC� � SITE~ �E �AD A MEETING WIT� JAMES MADDEN FROM EARLE BROWN BO�L,A@D STEV� NELSON FROM LYNB�OOK AND THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS. BRGOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB DID NOT FEEL THAT WE COULD . AFFORD A HIGHER RENT F IGURE THAN 7OO.00 AND STILL MEET OUR 50-50 EXPENSE LIMITATION REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. THANK YOU LION TOM SHINNICK PRES BRODKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB � � ' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/10/91 g • Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes The plat of EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION, recorded in 1980, dedicated drainage and utility easements to the City, along the perimeters of its lots. The owner of Lot 4, Block 1, Mr. Paul Horarik, has requested that the City vacate a portion of the easement adjacent to his easterly lot line. It is his desire to build a garage next to his house, into the area currently dedicated as public easement. The attached figures are provided for reference. As originally platted, there existed a 20 foot wide easement, centered on the common lot line between Lots 4 & 5. The original preliminary plat for this development (dated 1979) identified a low area at the southeast corner of Lot 4, and the 20 foot wide easement was proposed to allow the construction of a storm sewer to drain it. A subsequent grading plan, however, shows a swale created for the same purpose, and field verification indicates that no drainage problems currently exist. It now appears that the "extra- wide" easement was left on the final plat as an oversight. At the request of Mr. Horarik's neighbor to the east, the portion of the drainage and utility easement lying on Lot 5 was vacated by the City for similar reasons in 1983. It is now proposed that the drainage and utility easement westerly of and adjacent to the east line of Lot 4, be effectively reduced in width by vacating the west 5 feet. While we do not foresee the need for future storm sewer construction along this lot line, it is staff's recommendation not to vacate the easement in its entirety. Under normal circumstances, staff doesn't recommend • vacating public easements to allow further development. In this case, however, the width of the easement can be reduced without adversely affecting the public. The homeowner, Mr. Horarik, has commented that his needs would be met with the 5 foot remaining easement. The private utility companies serving the area are reviewing this request. City staff are also reviewing locations of any City -owned utilities to determine if the City should retain the easement. 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. • r 66TH. AVE. N. `` z W 65TH. AVE. N. Q c W x W 64TH. AVE. N. x EARLE BROWN 1st ADDITION VICINITY MM 0 200 400 I mm SCALE IN FEET I CENTER PREPARED BY ULTIMAP SHEET 1 OF 2 66TH. A VE No 38-81 I � 10 i Lo LOT 4 s I I - i r I 15 � 5 BLOCK I� I � lol I II 75 !_ - -- -- — _ — -- !� � 95.48 —� 7s 5 PORTION OF EASEMENT T BE VACATED 16 15 14 EASEMENT VACATION LOT 4, BLOCK 1 EARLE BROWN 1st ADDITION 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET AREPAP,ED BY ULTIMAP SHEEN 2 OF 2 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 Portion Of A Drainage And Utility Easement in EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION. 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 PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The ten foot drainage and utility easement along the east line of Lot 4, Block 1, EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION Hennepin County Minnesota except the northerly 10 feet the southerly 5 feet and the easterly 5 feet thereof, 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 Date9/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City's Ordinance to allow detached car washes at service station sites i DEPT ROYAL: RONALD A. WARREN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: ?' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) The Planning Commission considered the above entitled ordinance amendment during its review of Planning Commission No. 91018 involving the proposed PDQ gas station /convenience store /car wash. Detached car washes are not permitted under the current ordinance which requires facilities for washing vehicles to be enclosed within the principal building. This provision has been questioned occasionally by developers proposing to build car washes in conjunction with other uses such as gas stations and convenient stores. It has been noted that within the last 10 years detached car wash facilities at service stations have become more popular and have been able to provide more flexibility for better circulation around a site. It has also been noted that in some communities attached car washes to principal buildings have been prohibited and that the only way to build such a facility is through a variance. We believe that the primary reason for our ordinance prohibition against detached car wash facilities has been one of appearance. Being able to provide either an attached or detached facility will provide greater flexibility in designing for good traffic circulation and appropriate stacking. By requiring that the building materials and exterior treatment of a detached facility be of the same level of quality as the principal building should address any concerns regarding the appearance of such a building on the site. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment in light of the general effects on the community and recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. It is recommended that the City Council have a first reading on this proposed ordinance amendment and establish a date and time for public hearing. q 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 to allow for a detached car wash at a service station site. 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 DETACHED CAR WASHES AT SERVICE STATION SITES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 35 -414. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS. Automobile service stations pose particular problems in achieving compatibility with abutting adjacent land uses because of potentially detrimental aspects of their operation. The problem is basically both functional and esthetic involving traffic hazards, noise, light glare at night, outdoor storage of merchandise, poor architectural design, indiscriminate advertising, etc., all of which contribute to less enjoyment and use of the reduction of property values in surrounding properties. It is hereby determined that the general welfare will be better served by minimizing adverse functional and esthetic conditions which may result from operation of automobile service stations and that the use, enjoyment, and improvement of surrounding property will be enhanced by the following requirements: 6. Facilities for chassis and gear lubrication [and for washing] must be enclosed within the principal building. Vehicle washes may be located in a separate building on the site provided that the materials and exterior treatment for the wash building shall be of the same level of quality as for the principal building. No merchandise may be displayed for sale outside the principal building except within four feet of the building or in pump islands unless enclosed by a structure comparable with the building. No discarded trash, parts, or tires may be stored outside the building unless enclosed by a durable structure compatible with the design of the principal building. ORDINANCE NO. 91- Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adoption this day of , 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underlined indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date I0/7 /91 • Agenda Item Number / D O. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: WATER SLIDE OPERATIONS AND SCHEDULING (DISCUSSION ITEM) DEPT. APPROVAL: - - ok ln�� Sy app, b of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: - 4k6 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • Attached, per City Council request at the 9/23/91 meeting, are the following items: • A copy of the 6/24/91 letter from North Star Risk Services, Inc. (pp 4 through 8 relate to the water slide). • A copy of Mjorud Architecture's 7/15/91 response to the issues raised by North Star. • A copy of the Minnesota Department of Health's regulations regarding "flume water slides ". Recreation Director Mavis will attend the meeting to discuss the following items with the City Council: • current usage and estimated usage of the pool by various user groups • current and proposed schedules for use of the pool by various user groups • proposed regulations regarding usage of the water slide • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • Review and discussion. No formal action is necessary unless the City Council wishes to direct staff and the architect to revise the plans and specifications approved by the Council on 9/23/91. • It is noted that the current schedule calls for bids to be opened on October 16, with award of the contract on October 21, start of construction on December 2 and completion by January 24, 1992. r North Star Risk Services, Inc. June 24, 1991 Mr. Paul Holmlund Finance Director CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Holmlund: On June 13, 19911 made a loss control review of the Earl Brown Heritage Center after the bimonthly city safety committee meeting. I did find a number of areas in which I have made recommendations to assist the city in loss control. Please look at the issues I have raised as my attempt to assist the city in their loss control endeavors. , Follo the review of the Earl Brown Heritage Center, I made an evening presenta " to the ci eguards pursuant to controlling potential losses in the swimming pool a. I also visited ' h Ms. Donna Powers concerning the pool operations. I did h several recommendatio to make along these lines. Again, it is my desire that the ooks at the recommendations y attempt to assist the city in their loss control eavors. For your convenience, I ve categorized my loss control rec mendations in separate sections. EARL BROWN HERITAGE CE R 1 -6191 The city should provide for c nt inspection by a qualified service company W on each fire extinguisher an a al basis. Fire extinguishers found at the i' time of survey did not e ro er to ffixed indicating Y P P g current service. Most fire extinguishers inspection dates o vember, 1989. (OSHA reference 1910.157.) 2 -6/91 Upo y tour of the sleeping quarters of the Ear' own Heritage Center, I w not able to locate smoke detectors in most of t leeping quarters. I ould highly recommend the city place smoke detecf in the sleeping quarters which were not equipped with smoke detectors. A esent, a very popular style of smoke detector utilizes line current and has a b ery 1401 West 76th street, suite 550 ■ Nlinneapohs, Minnesota 55423 ■ (612) 861 -8600 ■ TELEX 9102401598 City of Brooklyn Center June 24, 1991 Page Four building in an effort to keep from losing them. Some industries have a placed signs on the building reminding truck drivers to chock wheels ore eaving the vans. These advisory signs are, oftentimes, written ba rds so can be read properly in the left side mirror of the driver he /she is bac into the dock area. • SWIMMING POOL RATIONS 14 -6/91 Due to the fact t the city's pool and recre n department is doing some �r scheduling and regi tion for recreation grams such as swimming lessons, Gl it we recommend that registration ats be standardized and include a waiver of liability/hold ha ess a inent in favor of the city. This agreement should be included on the fo an area nearby the area where signatures are affixed by the participa 's should also include an area for signature by a parent or guardia ere min age children are involved. If it is the city's ' ntion to also provide e gency first aid /medical treatment to participa , a waiver of liability'In this re d should also be included. The ' 's legal counsel should be involved in preparation of these erials. The LMCIT legal staff may also be of assi ce. 15 -6/91 Upon review of the advisory signs in the swimming pool area, enerally make recommendations that these signs be highly visible, which would lude larger lettering and highly visible paint. Therefore, I would recommend th ity legal counsel review the signs for proper visibility, placement and the written ices. PROPOSED WATER SLIDE Increasingly, municipalities are looking to other recreational facilities to assist in providing recreational experiences for their citizens and, in some cases, to enhance revenues from existing facilities, such as municipal swimming pools. Certainly, these are valid points. However, facilities such as water slides can create some unique and substantial exposures to claims and losses for municipalities. With a commitment to sound risk management and loss control efforts, these exposures can certainly be controlled. We offer the following loss control recommendations to assist in minimizing this potential for loss relative to the operation of a water slide facility. City of Brooklyn Center June 24, 1991 Page Five 16 -6/91 Since water slides come in a variety of configurations and construction designs, it is difficult to make certain specific recommendations in a generalized manner such as this. Information concerning such things as the length, height and slope or structure design are just some of the important factors to consider. WE ASK THAT YOU SUBMIT WATER SLIDE PLANS THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING TO US FOR REVIEW FROM A LOSS CONTROL AND UNDERWRITING STANDPOINT. 17 -6/91 We highly recommend that any water slide facility be one that is commercially manufactured by a reputable manufacturer, preferably with experience and a "track record" in the manufacture of water slide equipment. In conjunction with this, you maj also wish to require in your purchase speci- fications that this manufacturer supply evidence of financial responsibility for product liability for the equipment that they are selling. 18 -6/91 The water slide facility should be planned in a manner which will allow for properly securing it from unauthorized access or use when it is closed and /or unsupervised. Because these kinds of facilities can be considered "attractive nuisance" type exposures, it will probably be necessary to secure the perimeter of the facility with substantial security fencing, such as six to eight foot chain - link fencing. Proper advisory and warning signage should also be placed. (Refer to following recommendation 1#20 for further information). 19 -6/91 An inspection and maintenance policy and implementation program should be established at the time of construction of the water slide. Ideally, this program should fully recognize all manufacturers' recommendations and specifications for maintenance and inspection of the water slide. As with any program of this type, full documentation should be maintained of these inspection and maintenance activities. This program should include normal preventive maintenance as well as regular inspections for the structural integrity of the slide trough and its support structure. 20 -6/91 Appropriate rules and regulations should be established, and enforced, for the use of the water slide facility and surrounding area. these rules and regulations should be posted in a conspicuous manner which can be easily observed by users of the water slide. It is also recommended that, where applicable, pictograph -type signage should be utilized. City of Brooklyn Center June 24, 1991 Page Six It is highly recommended that any rules and regulations be reviewed by experienced legal counsel before they are posted. As an adjunct to this, a system should also be established for the documentation and investigation of incidents and accidents which may occur. This system should allow for rectifying any indicated problem areas as soon as they are noted. 21 -6/91 Appropriately trained supervisory staff should be in place at the water slide facility whenever it is open for use. the training for this supervisory staff should be at least as complete as that training provided to lifeguards for the swimming pool area. The supervisory staff should have ready access to communication with emergency support personnel /emergency medical services as well as access to on -site first aid equipment. Obviously, the supervisory staff would also need to be properly trained in the use of the first aid equipment provided. We highly recommend that supervision be provided at the top of the water slide so as to require proper orientation of persons using the slide and to control the interval of slide users. We also highly recommend that supervising staff be placed at the bottom of the water slide at its exit point to assist persons who have exited the slide to vacate the area in anticipation of additional sliders exiting the slide. This slide exit area should also be segregated from the remaining pool area and should be marked as a non - swimming area to be used strictly for water slide users exiting the slide. In many cases, the water depth in this slide exit area should be approximately three feet, but can vary somewhat depending on the slide manufacturer's recommendations. 22 -6/91 For the safety of persons using the slide, regulations should be in place to require that these users go down the slide in a feet first position. It is also necessary that a reasonable interval between slide users be established to reduce the possibility of water slide users being overtaken while in the slide by other slide users, resulting in injuries. City of Brooklyn Center June 24, 1991 Page Seven 23 -6/91 Because of the hazards associated with slide corners and turns, it is highly recommended that all corners be completely covered or in a tube -type configuration. This will minimize the potential for accidental exit from the slide due to centrifugal force. Again, utilizing a tried and tested commercial slide design will assist in minimizing this potential. 24 -6/91 Close adherence should be paid to the slide manufacturer's specifications for maintaining certain water volume requirements flowing in the water slide trough. In some instances, slide manufacturers may recommend the use of special rugs or mats to help control the slide user's speed in the slide. 25 -6/91 It is also important to establish enforced rules and regulations concerning the type of swim wear that will be allowed by water slide users. Approved swim wear should not contain such materials as rivets, buttons or zipper equipment which can increase abrasion on the water slide trough surface. Again, appropriate signage stating what kinds of swim wear are allowed and what kinds are not acceptable should be conspicuously posted at the entrance to the water slide area. 26 -6/91 We also highly recommend that enforced regulations be maintained concerning the age and /or height of users of the water slide before they must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. An example of this would be requiring that all participants be at least six years old. Then, those children under six would need to be accompanied by a parent or other appropriate supervising person. 27 -6/91 Testing for water quality at the water slide facility should meet the same State Health Department requirements as those that would need to be maintained for the regular pool area. 28 -6/91 Is the water slide intended, in its specifications and design factors, to be accessible to handicapped persons? This is especially noteworthy because of the recent passage of the Federal Americans with Disability Act of 1990. In essence, this act would require that all public facilities be accessible to handicapped persons to avoid discrimination based on handicap. For your further review, I am enclosing a copy of excerpts from the Act to give you some further detail on the wording of the Act. As you can see, this does, potentially, have impact on facilities and recreational operations conducted by public entities. City of Brooklyn Center June 24, 1991 Page Eight GENERAL OPERATIONS 29 -6/91 As we have discussed in the past, I am concerned about the potential ramifications for the use of the word "safe" in city writings. Therefore, I would caution the city on the use of such a word. The long -term benefits and successes that can be enjoyed by a cooperative, self- insurance organization depend upon serious and careful consideration of loss control recommendations. In that context we ask that you keep us informed of the steps you take to address these loss control recommendations. Therefore, PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 60 DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER REGARDING THE STATUS OF HOW YOU INTEND TO RESPOND TO THESE LOSS CONTROL RECOM- MENDATIONS. For your convenience, enclosed is a self - addressed envelope. Feel free to make your reply on a copy of this letter and return it in this envelope. Thank you for your continued efforts in the interest of loss control. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Douglas D. Holm, CSP, MS Senior Loss Control Consultant North Star Risk Services, Inc. DDH:eab Enclosure cc: Mr. David Howard B.H.K. & R. 7825 Washington Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55435 These recommendations are made for risk improvement purposes only. They were not made for the purpose of complying with the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these recommendations that there are no other hazards and exposures in existence. The purpose of the recommendations is to assist in improving the risk exposure and to assist you with your loss control program. WORUD ARCHITECTURE 12400 12th Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55441 - 4612 612- 544 -3871 July 15, 1991 Mr. Sy Knapp City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Response to Safety Inspection Report Dated June 24, 1991 from North Star Risk Services, Inc. Dear Sy, This is our response to the Loss Control Recommendations for the water slide proposed to be constructed within the Community Center building. We have contacted Bob Klein of Bob Klein & Associates, representing Miracle Recreation Equipment Company to obtain most of the information included herein. Incidentally, Bob said that North Star Risk has submitted a similar letter on every water slide project with which he has been involved. The statements follow the numbering system listed in the June 24 letter: 16 -6/91 A plan has already been submitted showing the configuration, the length, the height of the tower. 17 -6/91 Bob Klein & Associates have installed many commercially manufactured water slides in this area and they do have a "track record." Their products liability insurance is presently at $6,000,000. 18 -6/91 This is not an outdoor water slide therefore fencing is not required since the slide will be installed within a confined and locked environment. The responsibility for supervision rests with the Owner. Standard signage is furnished by the water slide manufacturer. 19 -6/91 An inspection and maintenance policy and implementation program is also recommended by the slide manufacturer and the Architect. Mr. Sy Knapp City of Brooklyn Center July 15, 1991 Page 2 20 -6/91 The Architect and the slide manufacturer can assist the Owner prepare signage of appropriate rules and regulations. The City Attorney should also review and approve the text before posting. 21 -6/91 The Owner, together with the manufacturer's representative, can orient the staff as to the operation of the equipment. Yes, the water depth at the slide exit is between 36" and 42 ". This will be verified. The project will be submitted to the State Board of Health, Public Swimming Pool Division, for their review and approval. We are abreast of the current rules for water slides and public swimming pools. 22 -6/91 Yes, we agree with the regulations requiring the users to go down the slide in a feet -first position. A staff person would be placed at the top of the slide to control the interval between slide users. 23 -6/91 The slide manufacturer does not agree that a completely covered or a tube -type configuration would be in the best interest of the users or the City. Uplifted or extended arms may collide with the openings to these tubes causing injury. The extended sides designed by the manufacturer control the centrifugal force and it would not be our intent to alter a design that has been subjected to the scrutiny of experienced engineers and the test of time. 24 -6/91 Yes, water volume requirements and pump size designed by the manufacturer must be followed. This slide does not incorporate the use of special rugs or mats. 25/6 -91 The type of swimwear should be a prerequisite to water slide use. 26/6 -91 Yes, regulations have to be enforced in regard to the age or height of the user. Also, some cities, such as Austin and Winona, do not permit children to slide with parents. Accidents could occur upon plunging into the pool. You may also decide to adopt this policy. Mr. Sy Knapp City of Brooklyn Center July 15, 1991 Page 3 27/6 -91 The testing for water quality is already a function of normal pool operation by the park and recreation department. 28/6 -91 No, this water slide is not intended to be accessible to all handicapped persons, nor is there an access ramp or an elevator. Handrails will be provided on each side of the stairs to allow limited access to some individuals with certain physical disabilities. 29/6 -91 Yes, the word "safe" in City writings is not appropriate even though every measure is taken to make the water slide a reasonably safe recreational amenity. The slide manufacturer has provided literature for you regarding the success of the water slide installations at Crystal, Winona, Montevideo, and Austin. The proposed water slide at Brooklyn Center is no different than these installations. If you need any additional information, or if you would like to discuss this further, please contact us at any time. Sincerely, MJORUD ARCHITECTURE Al Mjorud, Al AM:vlp Copies: Arnie Mavis Bob Klein Enclosure MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS 4717.3820 FLUKE WATER SLIDES Subp. 1. In addition to the provisions of this 2art, flume waterslide facilities must wit a provisions of parts throug 4717.3800 except as modified in this part. Subp. 2. Flume waterslides are permitted only where continuous lifeguard service is provided. Subp. 3. Flumes must discharge to a dedicated lun a pool or a 0 designated dedicated area of a lar pool with a separate ladder or stairs. The p ool operating water depth at the end of a flume must be a minimum o three hree feet and not more than 3 feet six inches. This depth must be maintained in front of the flume for a distance of at least ten feet from which t e un a ool floor may have a constant slope upward to a minimum water depth of two feet. Steps with an ra s are needed at the exit from the Pool- Subp. 4. A flume must be perpendicular to the plun . pool wall for a distance of at least ten feet from the exit end of the flume. Subp. 5. A flume must terminate either at a depth of at least six inches below the plunge pooi operating water surface level or at or no more than two inches above the water surface level provided the flume is level for a distance of at least ten feet from its exit end. Subp. 6. The distance between the side of a flume terminus and a plunge p ool s� wall must be at l east four f eet. the di stance between sides of a acent Flume t must be at least six feet. a distance etween a flume exit and the opposite side of the plunge oo excluding steps, must be at least 20 feet. Subp. 7. Water being pumped to the top of the flume(s) must be taken from a pumping reservoir wh s connected to the pool, but not accessible to the patrons. The pump reservoir shall be secured to prevent unauthorized access. The intake ntakes shall enable cleaning and shall prevent patron entrapment. where entrances to pump reservoirs present underwater_ 30 o rovisions must be made to prevent . patron access to those areas dT tie pool . _water in elocity to the pump reservoir must not exceed FPS_ Subp. S. Each flume pump discharge pipe shall have a check valve, and the vo uma o water in the pool ur n of use or shutdown o the pumps must Permit proper operation of the recirculation system. , Subp. 9 The recirculation system for dedicated plunge cools must recirculate a water volume equal to the total volume of the facility in one hour or less. Subp. 10. Surfaced walkways are required from the pool deck to the to of the flume or to tower stairs. Tower stairs and platforms must have n s ed surfaces whi meet t o requirements for d ecks in part . 000. Subp. 11, FencIn5 complyin5 with part 4717,0350 or other enclosure must encompass the pop ec , walk waXs l and the fl ume access. Subp. 12, The plans must include. flume construction and layout details flume supEort structure detailsi tower structure stairs latform deta s; and all other related construction. Th fl Tma supports and tower structure must be certified as to structural Integrity. Sub P. I3. A le ibTe sign relating the following must be located at the p of the f e Do not use this slide while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Only one o ersort - allowed at a time. Foll the instruct ons of the supervisor and lif e5ward. No running, Stan nql nee in rotatin hum in or stoppin in the flum4s or tunnels. Keep your hands I nsid e the flume. No di ving f rom a ume, Leave the pl unge pool promptly after entering it. 4717.3 PAYE POOLS Subp. 1, ddition to the provisions of this part way of f8c11 t 1 es must comPs, Ith all rov sions of arts 7 .0 hrou h except as mo n this part. Subp. 2. wave ools are a ted only a continuous lifeguard service is provid Sub . 3. water depths may -ro re to zer the shallow end to allow for dissipat on of the waves. Subp. 4. A saf arrier consisting of stanchions a o es or similar at l eas — b — es n height, mus a p rovided which ocated to regent Swi rom entering the pool at any location other t Zero water d en must have at least one intermed heigh ro a a n t e ba rr 31 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date I oni9 l Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, rector of Public Works • s�j MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes City Council Resolution Number 90 -247 established the current Water Utility rate schedule. That resolution also directed staff to conduct a rate study in 1993. While a formal rate study was not required at this time, staff have conducted the attached review of those rates to determine their continued adequacy. Su The rate schedule adopted in 1990 was based on the following three objectives: o That the base charge would be a single rate per 1000 gallons used, with neither conservation nor volume discounts; o That one -half of the interest earnings on retained investments be utilized to pay operating and maintenance costs (thereby subsidizing the rate structure), while the other half should be used to provide financing for capital outlay projects; and o That a minimum balance of $3.7 million be retained as a "restricted investment" for purposes of partial funding of a future water treatment plant. • • Utilizing these criteria, the rate increase established by resolution 90 -247 for 1992 is expected to adequately support expected 1992 expenditures. However, given the anticipated capital outlays, cash and investment reserves will fall below $3.7 million, and the City will no longer be able to maintain that level of a restricted reserve. The scheduled rate increases would attempt to avoid operating losses and prevent further erosion of cash reserves. Staff also reviewed the effect of slowly phasing out the use of interest earnings to subsidize rates. At their June, 1991 Financial Report presentation to the City Council, the City's financial auditors made several financial management recommendations. Among the recommendations was to avoid the practice of passing on the costs of today's services to tomorrow's taxpayers. The practice of using interest earnings to subsidize operating costs, the second objective outlined above, reduces the City's future ability to fund capital improvements. A study of the long -term effect of this subsidy shows that by the year 2000, the subsidy results in a ten cent differential in the rate per 1000 gallons of water. However, phasing out the subsidy could increase cash reserves for capital projects by as much as $1 million by 2000. Maintaining a restricted reserve for a future treatment plant would reduce the impact of a rate increase to retire a bond issue by reducing the amount the utility would need to borrow. • Recommendation It is recommended that the interest rate subsidy be phased out at a rate of 20 percent each year. This policy change would provide additional reserves for capital outlay, and would move toward making the utility operations self - sustaining. The recommended rate schedule compared to the established shedule is as follows: WATER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE AS ESTABLISHED AND AS RECOMMENDED: PHASE OUT INTEREST SUBSIDY 20% EACH YEAR ESTABLISHED RATE SUBSIDY PHASE -OUT RATE YEAR Amount Per 1000 Gallons Amount Per 1000 Gallons 1991 $0.55 $0.55 1992 $0.63 $0.64 1993 $0.71 $0.73 RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review the attached detailed water utility rate review. Discuss the two options presented: no change in approved rate increases, and the phase -out of the interest subsidy. The first option requires no action. A resolution is provided should the Council wish to adopt the second option. r CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569-3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE October 3, 1991 911 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector SUBJ: Review of Water Utility Rates I. INTRODUCTION The City Council on November 19, 1990 adopted resolution 90 -247, the Water Utility Rate Schedule. This resolution established rates for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. This memo reviews the water utility's financial performance in 1990 and 1991, refines projections for 1992 and 1993, and evaluates the adequacy of the rate increase scheduled for 1992 and 1993. This review incorporates those capital expenditures identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program as expected to be funded from water utility cash reserves. II. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, 1990 AND 1991 A. ACTUAL OPERATING COSTS Operating costs in 1990 were lower than projected for several reasons. Fewer water main breaks required less city labor and contractual services for repair. Utility staff worked closely with the contractors constructing well #10, and that labor cost is considered to be a capital improvement cost rather than an operating cost. Costs in 1991 are now estimated to be lower overall than projected for the same reasons. Some line items will show an increase as well #10 is brought on line, such as the cost of electricity and other utilities to operate and maintain the pump and well house, and the cost of chemical treatment. B. ACTUAL WATER USE Actual billed water in 1990 sharply decreased from 1989, and is expected to be even lower in 1991. Projecting billable water is difficult because water use is highly dependent on the weather. �yN 1986ALL4MEtOLA pT'! � Rate Review - Page 2 TABLE 1 BILLABLE WATER AS ESTIMATED AND AS ACTUAL Year Estimated (1000 G) Actual (1000 G) 1989 1,587,300 1990 1,225,000 1,254,900 1991 1,235,000 1,190,300* *Estimate as of August, 1991 C. REVENUES Actual billable water in 1990 was slightly higher than expected, resulting in collection of about $55,000 more than anticipated. It is expected that the utility will collect about $30,000 less than anticipated in 1991. Interest earnings were greater than expected in both years due to the phasing of the expenditures for well #10. Overall, revenues totalled more than projected. D. CAPITAL OUTLAYS The construction of well #10 resulted in significant capital outlay over the two year period. Water utility improvements were also constructed as a part of the Freeway Boulevard and West River Road street improvements. In 1991, improvements to the water distribution system costing approximately $600,000 are being constructed. All of these expenditures were anticipated in the 1990 rate study. III. REVIEW OF RATE INCREASES, 1992 AND 1993 A. PROJECTED EXPENSES Personnel and utility expenses are projected to increase at a rate of three percent per year, while other operating expenses are projected to increase five percent per year. Table 2 on the following page details the program of capital improvements outlined in the Capital Improvements Program. B. ADEQUACY OF EXISTING RATES The schedule at the end of this report labelled W1 shows the projected effect of the existing rate schedule. No rates have been established for 1994 and beyond, so this schedule shows WATER UTILITY ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 69th Ave., Brooklyn Blvd. to Shingle Creek Pkwy. 420,100 57th Ave., Logan to Lyndale 50,000 63rd Ave., W City Limits to Brooklyn Blvd. 95,000 Noble Ave., Brooklyn Blvd. to N City Limits 13,000 69th Ave., Shingle Creek Pkwy. to Oliver & Bridge 32,000 France Ave., 69th to N City Limits 31,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Shingle Creek Pkwy. to Brooklyn Blvd. (Water Dist.) 300,000 Loop 2" Watermain at Lawrence Circle 15,000 Water Sample Lab Update 25,000 Routine Well Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Cathodic Protection 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 SCADA Update 50,000 50,000 Well 6 to Shingle Creek Pkwy. (Water Dist.) 300,000 2MG Reservoir & Pumping Station (Const. Well 10) 3,300,000 New Electric Controls at Wells 5,6,7 90,000 Paint Tower No. 2 150,000 Paint Tower No. 3 158,000 EQUIPMENT & OTHER Computer Software & Hardware 7,500 Emergency Utility Van 30,000 Remote Reading Water Meters 275,000 250,000 250,000 Pickup (Shared with Sewer Utility) 5,000 5,000 Backhoe 50,000 Utility Storage Building 112,500 $947,600 $4'005,000 $528,000 $507;!000 8 W N 0 Rate Review - Page 4 rates continuing at the present amount of increase of eight cents per year. The schedule labelled W2 shows the rates that would be required to achieve a goal of equalizing operating revenues and expenses. It appears that the existing rate schedule for 1992 and 1993 adequately supports the utility's financial goals. TABLE 3 WATER UTILITY ESTABLISHED BASE RATE SCHEDULE Year Amount Per 1000 Gallons 1991 $0.55 1992 $0.63 1993 $0.71 C. INTEREST EARNINGS SUBSIDY It has been policy to use one -half the interest earned on cash reserves to subsidize user rates. The remaining interest earnings are used to help fund capital improvements. At their June, 1991 Financial Report presentation to the City Council, the City's financial auditors made several financial management recommendations. Among the recommendations was to avoid the practice of passing on the costs of today's services to tomorrow's taxpayers. The practice of using interest earnings to subsidize operating costs reduces the City's future ability to fund capital improvements. The long -term effect of this subsidy is a reduction of cash reserves. Maintaining a restricted reserve for a future treatment plant would reduce the rate increase for future utility customers needed to retire a bond issue by reducing the amount the utility would need to finance. Two rate projections to the year 2000 were made to compare the long -term effect of the rate subsidy: one assuming construction of a reservoir /pumping station, and one assuming that this improvement would not be constructed. If the City does build a $3.3 million reservoir and pumping station, slated for discussion in the next few years, the effect of the subsidy on rates is minimal. By 2000, rates per 1000 gallons with and without the interest subsidy would be about equal. However, by discontinuing the subsidy, the City would accumulate about $400,000 more in reserves than if the subsidy was continued. If that large capital improvement is not built, then the comparison between subsidized rates and non - subsidized rates is more dramatic. By 2000, the subsidized rates would be about ten cents less (about eleven percent) than the non - subsidized rate. However, by discontinuing the subsidy, the City would accumulate almost $1 million more in reserves than if the subsidy if the subsidy was continued. Table 4 shows the impact on rates in 1992 and 1993 should the Council wish to phase out the Rate Review - Page 5 interest subsidy 20 percent each year. The schedule at the end of this report labelled W3 shows the full financial effect of hasin out the subsidy. This schedule assumes that the P g Y reservoir /pumping station would be constructed in 1993, financed with $3.3 million raised from the sale of bonds. Interest earnings are used to reduce the impact on rates of the costs associated with financing those bonds. TABLE 4 WATER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE AS ESTABLISHED AND WITH PHASE -OUT OF INTEREST SUBSIDY ESTABLISHED RATE SUBSIDY PHASE -OUT RATE YEAR Amount Per 1000 Gallons Amount Per 1000 Gallons 1991 $0.55 $0.55 1992 $0.63 $0.64 1993 $0.71 $0.73 D. IMPACT OF ESTABLISHED RATE Table 5 below illustrates the impact the rate increase established for 1992 would have on the summer water bills of various types of customers. TABLE 5 IMPACT OF ESTABLISHED 1992 RATE INCREASE SUMMER WATER BILLS OF VARIOUS CUSTOMERS Type of Customer 1991 Charge 1992 Charge RESIDENTIAL Low Use (Senior) $6.00 $7.00* Average Use 21.45 24.57 High Use 62.15 71.19 Apartment, 36 Units 346.50 396.90 COMMERCIAL Car Dealership 129.25 148.05 Heavy Commercial Use 475.20 544.32 *Resolution 90 -247 increased the minimum rate from $6.00 to $7.00. Rate Review - Page 6 Table 6 is a summary of 1992 water rates per 1000 gallons for a number of Metro area cities. Brooklyn Center continues to have among the lowest rates in the Metro area. TABLE 6 1992 WATER RATES OF VARIOUS METRO AREA CITIES Rate City Per 1000 G Comments Bloomington 1.35 Increased for '92 Minneapolis 1.34 Proposed '92 rate Robbinsdale 1.27 Roseville 1.12 Crystal 1.10 Proposed '92 rate St. Anthony 1.07 Golden Valley 0.98 Increase expected in '92 New Hope 0.95 Increase expected in '92 Maple Grove 0.90 Increase expected in '92 Hopkins 0.85 St. Louis Park 0.76 Increased for '92 Minnetonka 0.75 Brooklyn Park 0.75 Plymouth 0.75 Anoka 0.65 Increase expected in '92 Apple Valley 0.65 Brooklyn Center 0.63 Edina 0.56 Increase expected in '92 Blaine 0.55 Increase expected in '92 New Brighton 0.55 Note: Rates per 100 cubic feet were converted to a rate per 1000 gallons. PUBUTIL \watrate:dfs Water Utility: Current Rate Schedule W1 03- Oct -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 96 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 190,000 210,000 216,300 222,789 229,473 236,357 Contractual 191,300 200,000 206,000 212,180 218,545 225,102 Supplies & Materials 111,700 125,000 131,250 137,813 144,703 151,938 Heat, Light & Power 157,500 160,000 164,800 169,744 174,836 180,081 Interest on Debt 3,610 1,855 0 264,000 256,000 248,000 Depreciation Expense 294,000 296,000 305,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $948,110 $992,855 $1,023,350 $1,326,526 $1,343,558 $1,361,478 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $654,665 $786,051 $887,500 $987,500 1,087,500 1,187,500 Billable water in MGAL 1,190,300 1,247,700 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 RATE PER 7 000 'GAL $0.55 $0.63 $0.71 $0.79 $0.87 $0.95 . 3) Miscellaneous Operating 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings 202,584 166,713 145,314 268,905 246,753 225 848 TOTAL REVENUES $892,249 $987,764 $1,067,814 $1,291 405 $1,369,253 $1 448,348 PROJECTED INCOME "OR LOSS $55,861 $5,091 $44,464 > $35,1;21 $25,695. $86,870! 6 1/2 Interest Earnings 202,584 166,713 145,314 4,905 NET INCOME OR' LOSS $146,723 $1161,622 $189,778 $30,216 $25,695 $86,;870: 1991 i'. 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $5,064,602 $4,167,825 $3,632,847 $3,422,625 $3,084,409 $2,823,105 8) Capital Outlay (1,292,500) (947,600) (4,005,000) (528,000) (507,000) (476,500) 9) Net Income or Loss 146,723 161,622 189,778 (30,216) 25,695 86,870 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) (45,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) 11) Depeciation Add -back 294,000 296,000 305,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 12) End of Year Cash;& Inv $4,167,825 $3,632,847 $3,422,625 $3;084,409 $2,823,105 $2,653,475. Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv 467,825 67,153 277,375 615,591 876,895 1,046,525 See attached footnotes PUBUTIL \watrate:dfs Water Utility: Operating Expenses = Operating Revenues W2 03- Oct -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995' 1996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 190,000 210,000 216,300 222,789 229,473 236,357 Contractual 191,300 200,000 206,000 212,180 218,545 225,102 Supplies & Materials 111,700 125,000 131,250 137,813 144,703 151,938 Heat, Light & Power 157,500 160,000 164,800 169,744 174,836 180,081 Interest on Debt 3,610 1,855 0 264,000 256,000 248,000 Depreciation Expense 294,000 296,000 305,000 320,000 320,000 320.000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $948,110 $992,855 $1,023,350 $1326526 $1343,558 $1,361,478 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $654,665 $786,051 $887,500 $1,025,000 1,062,500 1,100,000 Billable water in M GAL 1,190, 300 1,247,700 1,250, 000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250, 000 RATE PER 1000 GAL $Q 55 $0.63 $0.71 $0.82 $0.85 ; $0,:88'' 3) Miscellaneous Operating 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings 202,584 166 145,314 268_905 249,753 227,0 TOTAL REVENUES $892,249 $987,764 $1 $1,328 $1 $1,362.088 � PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS $55!,861 $5,091 $44,464 $2,379 $3,695. $610; 6 1/2 Interest Earnings 202,584 166,713 145,314 4,905 NET INCOME OR LOSS $146,723 ! $1,61 $189,778 $7,284 $3,695 $610 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995' 1996 '' EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $5,064,602 $4,167,825 $3,632,847 $3,422,625 $3,121,909 $2,838,605 8) Capital Outlay (1,292,500) (947,600) (4,005,000) (528,000) (507,000) (476,500) 9) Net Income or Loss 146,723 161,622 189,778 7,284 3,695 610 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) (45,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) 11) Depeciation Add -back 294,000 296,000 305,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 12) End of! Year Cash & Inv $4,167,825 $3,632,847 $3,422,625 $3,121,909 $2,838,605 $2,582,715> Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv 467,825 67,153 277,375 578,091 861,395 1,117,285 See attached footnotes N 0 0 0 PIIBUTIL \watrate:dfs Water Utility: Phase Out Interest Subsidy 20% /Year W3 03- Oct -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996: EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 190,000 210,000 216,300 222,789 229,473 236,357 Contractual 191,300 200,000 206,000 212,180 218,545 225,102 Supplies & Materials 111,700 125,000 131,250 137,813 144,703 151,938 Heat, Light & Power 157,500 160,000 164,800 169,744 174,836 180,081 Interest on Debt 3,610 1,855 0 264,000 256,000 248,000 1 Depreciation Expense 294 296,000 305,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $948,110 $992 $1,023 $1 $1,343,558 $1 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $654,665 $798,528 $912,500 $1,025,000 1,112,500 1,187,500 Billable water in MGAL 1,190,300 1,247,700 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 RATE' PER 000 GAL $0.55 $0.64 $0.89 $0.95' 3) Miscellaneous Operating 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings 202_ 58 133,370 87.488 266,578 202 462 140,8 TOTAL REVENUES $892,249 $966 $1,034,98 $1,326,578 $1,349,962 $1 36 3,307 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS $55,861 $25,957 $11',638 $52 $6,404 $1,8291 6 1/2 Interest Earnings 202,584 200,056 204,138 10,310 50 93 NET INCOME OR LOSS $146,723 $174,099 $215,776 $10,363.. $57 $95,700': 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $5,064,602 $4,167,825 $3,645,324 $3,461,100 $3,163,463 $2,933,482 8) Capital Outlay (1,292,500) (947,600) (4,005,000) (528,000) (507,000) (476,500) 9) Net Income or Loss 146,723 174,099 215,776 10,363 57,019 95,700 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) (45,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) 11) Depeciation Add -back 294,000 296,000 305,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 12) End of Year Cash !& Inv'' $4' „167,825 $3,645,324 $3,461' „100 163,463 $2,933,482 $2,772,682'. Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv 467,82 54,676 _(238 (536,537) 766,518 (9 27 1 318 See attached footnotes W WATER UTILITY FOOTNOTES: 1. Operations Personal service: The costs of full and part time labor and benefits. Contractual service: Administrative costs such as LOGIS charges, postage, insurance, administrative services, and contracted repairs. Supplies and materials: Office supplies, repair and maintenance supplies, safety equipment, water traetment chemicals. Heat, light, and power: NSP and Minnegasco charges for well houses, booster pumps, etc. Interest on debt: Interest and fiscal fees on bond payments. Depreciation expense: A method of financing fixed assets over the anticipated life of the asset. Straight -line depreciation is used, meaning the asset is depreciated in equal installments. Any new fixed asset ( such as a new water main) is added to the total for the fixed asset category (mains and lines, structures, equipment, land, and construction in progress). Any addition or repair to an existing fixed asset that adds to the life of the asset (such as well repair) is also added. 2. Billing Revenues Billable water: Approximately 98 percent of water pumped is billed out. The remainder is used by utilities crews to flush hydrants, mains, etc. with less than one percent unaccounted for. After two years of higher than average pumping, it is expected that 1990 water use will be more like 1985 -86 than 1988 -89. Because the number of residential connections is not expected toincrease substantially, it is assumed that billable water would increase at a modest one percent per year. 3. Misc. Operating Revenues Revenues from other fees and charges, such as meter rentals. 4. Misc. Non - operating Revenues Revenues from other sources. 5. 1/2 Interest Earnings Restricted and unrestricted assets are invested in the City's Investment Trust Fund. Interest is earned at about eight percent per year. PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS Operating revenues minus operating expenditures, plus 1/2 interest revenue. Numbers in parens are losses. 6. 1/2 Interest Earnings See #5 above. NET INCOME OR LOSS Projected operating Income or loss, plus 1/2 interest income. A positive is a net gain in retained earnings, while a negative is a net loss to the fund. 7. Start of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted ( "cash on hand ") assets. Investments 8. Capital Outlay The estimated cost of anticipated capital projects. 9. Net Income or Loss From above; the net operating impact on the fund. 10. Bond Debt Retired Annual bond payment. 11. Depreciation Add -back Depreciation is "added back" because it is not a true cash outlay. Because it is treated as an expense for rate - setting purposes, some capital outlay is paid for from water charges, and the outlays in excess of that are paid from cash reserves. 12. End of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted assets, after considering #8 -11. O Investments 0 Restricted Assets: $3.7 million reserved for partial funding of a future water treatment plant. p ( Unrestricted Assets: All non - restricted assets. "Cash on hand." tD in Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Brooklyn Center City Charter that Brooklyn Center's municipal utilities be self - sustaining entities through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees, and charges; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the financial requirements of the Water Utility and has developed a recommended rate schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following schedule of Water Utility fees will be in effect as of January 1, 1992. WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE Year Amount Per 1000 Gallons 1991 $0.55 1992 $0.64 1993 $0.73 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 Cameil Meeting Date I on /gi is Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE DEPT. APPROVAL: " , L �� Sy Knapp, V erector 6f Public Works ************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * ** * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEUENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attaVied SUIVEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • City Council Resolution Number 90 -248 established the current Sanitary Sewer Utility rate schedule. That resolution also directed staff to conduct a rate study in 1993. While a formal rate study was not required at this time, staff have conducted a review of those rates to determine their continued adequacy. Summary The rate schedule adopted in 1990 was based on the following three objectives: o That the base charge would be a single rate, with neither conservation nor volume discounts, except that the standard quarterly rates for senior citizen and apartment accounts are proportions of the residential quarterly rate. These rates are based on the demonstrated lesser volume of use by these customers; o That one -half of the interest earnings on retained investments be utilized to pay operating and maintenance costs (thereby subsidizing the rate structure), while the other half should be used to provide financing for capital outlay projects; and o That a minimum balance of $300,000 be retained as a "restricted investment" to provide for unexpected, major capital improvements. • Utilizing these criteria, the rate increase established by resolution 90 -248 for 1992 will not adequately support expected 1992 expenditures. The utility is expected to have a net operating loss in 1991 greater than what was anticipated at this time last year. This is due primarily to charges from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) being slightly higher than expected, and the overtime, contractual repair and other costs associated with the emergency repair of a collapsed sewer main in the vicinity of Lift Station #1. Expenses for 1992 and 1993 are also expected to be higher than anticipated due mainly to anticipated increased MWCC charges. Above - normal rainfall such as we have been experiencing in 1991 results in increased infiltration of storm water into the sanitary sewer system. This infiltration is metered along with the regular sewage flow. The City's MWCC charge, which represents about three - quarters of the utility's total operating expense, is based on metered flow. MWCC's complex rate setting process also results in a higher rate per thousand gallons during wet years, so we will end up paying a higher rate on an increased flow. The rate increases established in 1990 were scheduled to bring the utility back to operating solvency by 1993. Given current projections of operating expenses, a slightly accelerated rate of increase would be required to achieve this goal. Operating solvency is especially important to the sanitary sewer utility given the capital expenditures anticipated over the next decade and the need to maintain a cash reserve. r Staff also reviewed the effect on rates of slowly phasing out the use of interest earnings to subsidize rates. At their June, 1991 Financial Report presentation to the City Council, the City's financial auditors made several financial management recommendations. Among the recommendations was to avoid the practice of passing on the costs of today's services to tomorrow's taxpayers. The practice of using interest to subsidize operating costs reduces the City's future ability to fund capital improvements. A study of the long -term effect of this subsidy shows that by the year 2000, the subsidy would result in a two dollar differential in the residential quarterly rate, or eight cents per 1000 gallons. However, phasing out the subsidy could increase cash reserves by as much as $900,000 by 2000. Recommendation It is recommended that rates be adopted which continue to move the utility towards operating solvency by 1993. It is also recommended that the interest earning subsidy be phased out at a rate of 20 percent each year. These recommendations would result in an increase in the residential quarterly sewer rate of $4.25 (a 13 percent increase) instead of the $3.25 already approved (a 10 percent increase). That schedule and the recommended rates are as follows: • SANITARY SEWER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE AS ESTABLISHED AND AS RECOMMENDED: PHASING OUT THE INTEREST SUBSIDY 20% PER YEAR ESTABLISHED RATE SUBSIDY PHASE -OUT RATE YEAR Amount Residential Amount Residential Per 1000 Quarterly Per 1000 Quarterly Gallons Rate Gallons Rate 1991 $1.26 $31.50 $1.26 $31.50 1992 $1.39 $34.75 $1.43 $35.75 1993 $1.52 $38.00 $1.60 $40.00 At a minimum, the sanitary sewer rate schedule should be adjusted so that at least 50 percent of investment earnings are contributed to reserves funding capital improvement projects. In other words, the sanitary sewer utility must, as required by the city charter, be at least self- sustaining. An alternative rate schedule is shown below. • SANITARY SEWER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE AS ESTABLISHED AND ALTERNATIVELY ESTABLISHED RATE ALTERNATIVE RATE YEAR Amount per Residential Amount per Residential 1000 Gallons Quarterly Rate 1000 Gallons Quarterly Rate 1991 $1.26 $31.50 $1.26 $31.50 1992 $1.39 $34.75 $1.41 $35.25 1993 $1.52 $38.00 $1.56 $39.00 RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review the attached detailed sanitary sewer utility rate review. Discuss the three options presented: no change in approved rate increases; phase out the use of interest earnings to subsidize rates; and continue the subsidy but accelerate rate increases so that at a minimum 50 percent of the interest earnings are dedicated to funding capital outlay projects. The first option requires no action. It is recommended that the Resolutions are provided should the Council wish to adopt either the second or third option. The resolutions also direct staff to review the City's 1993 MWCC fee when established to determine if increases proposed by MWCC would require further adjustment of the rates. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: - O .569 3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE October 3, 1991 911 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector(sb ` SUBJ: Review of Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates I. INTRODUCTION The City Council on November 19, 1990 adopted resolution 90 -248, the Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Schedule. This resolution established rates for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. This memo reviews the water utility's financial performance in 1990 and 1991, refines projections for 1992 and 1993, and evaluates the adequacy of the rate increase scheduled for 1992 and 1993. This review incorporates those capital expenditures identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program as expected to be funded from sanitary sewer utility cash reserves. II. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, 1990 AND 1991 A. ACTUAL OPERATING COSTS Operating costs in 1990 were about as expected. Costs in 1991 are now estimated to be greater than projected primarily due to the $75,000 emergency repair of collapsed sewer main near Lift Station #l. B. ACTUAL ACCOUNTS AND CONSUMPTION The actual numbers of residential accounts per classification were very close to projected number of accounts. The amount of consumption billed non - residential accounts was greater than expected. Non - residential accounts are billed based on water consumption. Actual billed water in 1990 for all types of customers sharply decreased from 1989, and is expected to be even lower in 1991. However, the consumption of non - residential customers did not decrease as sharply, and as a consequence the total gallons billed those customers in 1990 and 1991 was greater than expected. �n `� ��i Rate Review - Page 2 C. REVENUES Actual revenues in both years were greater than anticipated primarily due to the increased level of non - residential consumption. Interest earnings were greater than expected in both years due to the phasing of the expenditures for replacement of Lift Station #2. D. CAPITAL OUTLAYS The replacement of Lift Stations #4, #5, and #7 was completed in 1990. Replacement of Lift Station #2 was begun in 1991 and is expected to be completed in 1992. All of these expenditures were anticipated in the 1990 rate study. III. REVIEW OF RATE INCREASES, 1992 AND 1993 A. PROJECTED EXPENSES Personnel and utility expenses are projected to increase at a rate of three percent per year, while other operating expenses are projected to increase five percent per year. Table 2 on the following page details the program of capital improvements outlined in the Capital Improvements Program. Three- quarters of the utility's operating cost results from the fee charged by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) for processing sewage. That fee is expected to be greater than projected in both 1992 and 1993. Above - normal rainfall such as we have been experiencing in 1991 results in increased infiltration of storm water into the sanitary sewer system. This infiltration is metered along with the regular sewage flow. The City's MWCC charge is based on metered flow. MWCC's complex rate setting process also results in a higher rate r higher r g per thousand gallons during wet years, so we will end up paying a rate on o an increased flow. B. ADEQUACY OF EXISTING RATES The schedule at the end of this report labelled SS shows the projected effect of the existing rate schedule. No rates have been established for 1994 and beyond, so this schedule shows rates continuing at the present amount of increase of thirteen cents per year. The schedule labelled SS2 shows the rates that would be required to achieve a goal of equalizing operating revenues and expenses. The rate increases established in 1990 were scheduled to bring the utility back to operating solvency by 1993. Given current projections of operating expenses, a slightly accelerated rate of increase would be required to achieve this goal. Operating solvency is especially important to the sanitary sewer utility given the capital expenditures anticipated over the next decade and the need to maintain a cash reserve. 0 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 69th Ave., Brooklyn Blvd. to Shingle Creek Pkwy. 393,800 57th Ave., Logan to Lyndale 4,000 63rd Ave., W City Limits to Brooklyn Blvd. 5,000 Noble Ave., Brooklyn Blvd. to N City Limits 1,000 69th Ave., Shingle Creek Pkwy. to Oliver & Bridge 2,000 France Ave., 69th to N City Limits 2,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS I Replace Lift #2 600,000 Intrac /Motorola Update 90,000 Inspect /Repair Mississippi River Interceptor 250,000 Replace Sewer Line at Brookdale 100,000 Annual Televising Program 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 1/1 Remediation Program 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Mobile Emergency Pump 30,000 Lift #1 Rehabilitation, Replace Forcemain 600,000 53rd Ave. (by Brookdale 10 Apts) Sewer Replace 32,000 James Ave. (55th to the South) Sewer Replace 70,000 69th Avenue to Lift #1 250,000 750,000 EQUIPMENT & OTHER Computer Software & Hardware 7,500 Pickup (Shared with Water Utility) 5,000 5,000 Sewer Jet /Vacter (Shared w /Storm Drainage) 130,000 Utility Storage Building 112,500 $1 749 30 $637, 000 $141 000 $ $14 500 V W F j Rate Review - Page 4 TABLE 2 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE AS ESTABLISHED AND AS RECOMMENDED ESTABLISHED RATE RECOMMENDED RATE YEAR Amount per Residential Amount per Residential 1000 Gallons Quarterly 1000 Gallons Quarterly Rate Rate 1991 $1.26 $31.50 $1.26 $31.50 1992 $1.39 $34.75 $1.41 $35.25 1993 $1.52 $38.00 $1.56 $39.00 C. INTEREST EARNINGS SUBSIDY It has been policy in past rate studies to use one -half the interest earned on cash reserves to subsidize user rates. The remaining interest earnings are used to help fund capital improvements. At their June, 1991 Financial Report presentation to the City Council, the City's financial auditors made several financial management recommendations. Among the recommendations was to avoid the practice of passing on the costs of today's services to tomorrow's taxpayers. The practice of using interest earnings to subsidize operating costs reduces the City's future ability to fund capital improvements. The long -term effect of this subsidy is a reduction of cash reserves. Maintaining an adequate reserve provides the City with the flexibility to undertake necessary utility improvement projects without making constant adjustments to the rates. A rate projection to the year 2000 was made to compare the long -term effect of the rate subsidy. By 2000, the subsidized rate would be about two dollars less for the residential quarterly rate, or eight cents less per 1000 gallons. However, by discontinuing the subsidy, the City would accumulate about $400,000 more in reserves than if the subsidy was continued. Table 3 shows the impact on rates in 1992 and 1993 should the Council wish to phase out the interest subsidy 20 percent each year. The schedule at the end of this report labelled SS3 shows the full financial effect of phasing out the subsidy. TABLE 3 Rate Review -Page 5 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE AS ESTABLISHED, AS RECOMMENDED AND WITH PHASE -OUT OF THE INTEREST SUBSIDY ESTABLISHED RATE RECOMMENDED RATE SUBSIDY PHASE - YEAR Amount per Residential Amount per Residential Amount per Residential 1000 Quarterly 1000 Quarterly 1000 Quarterly Gallons Rate Gallons Rate Gallons Rate 1991 $1.26 $31.50 $1.26 $31.50 $1.26 $31.50 1992 $1.39 $34.75 $1.41 $35.25 $1.43 $35.75 1993 $1.52 $38.00 $1.56 $39.00 $1.60 $40.00 D. IMPACT OF ESTABLISHED RATE Table 4 below illustrates the impact the rate increase established for 1992 would have on the summer sanitary sewer bills of various types of customers. TABLE 4 IMPACT OF ESTABLISHED 1992 RATE INCREASE SUMMER SANITARY SEWER BILLS OF VARIOUS CUSTOMERS Type of Customer 1991 Charge 1 1992 Charge RESIDENTIAL Low Use (Senior) $17.33 $19.39 Average Use 31.50 35.25 High Use 31.50 35.25 Apartment, 36 Units 793.80 888.48 COMMERCIAL Car Dealership 296.10 331.35 Heavy Commercial Use 1,088.64 1,218.24 Rate Review - Page 6 Table 5 is a summary of 1992 sanitary sewer residential rates for a number of Metro area cities. Brooklyn Center continues to be about in the middle of the range of quarterly charges. Rate City Per Quarter Comments Minneapolis $51.10 Proposed '92 rate Anoka 44.45 Increase expected in '92 St. Anthony 44.13 Hopkins 43.75 Edina 43.35 Increase expected in '92 Minnetonka 42.50 New Hope 36.64 Increase expected in '92 Plymouth 36.50 Expect 10% increase in '92 BROOKLYN CENTER 35.25 Blaine 33.00 Increase expected in '92 New Brighton 32.50 St. Louis Park 32.48 Maple Grove 32.00 Increase expected in '92 Crystal 27.30 Expect 5% increase in '92 Fridley 34.65 Increase expected in '92 Bloomington 24.00 Robbinsdale 23.60 Richfield 23.20 Golden Valley 22.00 Note: Residential quarterly charges were converted and /or calculated when necessary for comparability. PURATES:sewrate /dfs Sewer Utility : Current Rate Schedule SS1 03- Oct -91 1991 >> 1'992 1993 1994 1995 ! 1996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 130,270 125,000 128,750 132,613 136,591 140 Contractual Service 270,200 200,000 210,000 220,500 231,525 243,101 Supplies & Materials 14,600 15,330 16,096 16,901 17,746 18,634 Heat, Light, & Power 18,000 18,900 19,845 20,837 21,879 22,973 Depreciation Expense 219,590 169,000 184,000 214,000 214,000 214,000 Subtotal: City O &M Expense $652,660.00 $528,230.00 $558,691.50 $604,851.07 $621,741.38 $639,396.63 MWCC Charges $1,309,645.00 $1,444,165.00 $1,512,160.00 $1,602,889.60 $1,699,062.98 $1,801,006.75 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,962,305.00 $1,972 $2 $ 2,207 , 740.67 $2 $2 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,577,762 $1,746,156 $1,914,899 $2,084,737 $2,255,708 $2,427,852 Residential Accts 6,865 6,840 6,815 6,790 6,765 6,740 Quarterly Charge $31.50 $34;75 $38.Q0 $41,25 $44.50 ! $47:75 Senior Accts 1,600 1,625 1,650 1,675 1,700 1,725 Quarterly Charge $17,33 $19'11 $20.90 $22.69 < $24.48 $26.27'. Apartment Accts 3,537 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 Quarterly Charge $22.05 $24.33 $26.60 $28.88 $31.15 $33.43 Non - residential Water 230,000 234,600 239,300 244,100 249,000 254,000 RATE PER 1000 GAL." $1.26 $1;39 $1.52 $1.65, $1.78 ;1l'.91' 3) Miscellaneous Operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4) Miscellaneous Non- operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings 146,448 147,246 87,564 71,011 75,492 51,887 TOTAL REVENUES $1,744,210 $1,913,402 $2,022 $2 $2 $2 739 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS ! $218U95 $58,993 $48,38$ $31,993 $30,396 $59,336' 6 1/2 Interest Earnings 146 14 87,564 71,011 75,492 51,887 NET INCOME OR LOSS $71,646 :! $88,253 $39,176 $39,019;; $105,888 $ 223 1991 1'992 1993 1994 1995 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,661,206 $3,681,150 $2,189,102 $1,775,278 $1,887,297 $1,297,184 8) Capital Outlay (128,000) (1,749,300) (637,000) (141,000) (910,000) (142,500) 9) Net Income or Loss (71,646) 88,253 39,176 39,019 105,888 111,223 10) Depreciation Add -back 219,590 169,000 184,000 214,000 214,000 214,000 11) End' of Year Cash Inv $x,681,150 $2,;189,102 $f ,775,278 $1,887,297' $ ,297,184 $1479,908 Restricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unrestricted Investments 3381150 1,889,102 1,4 1,587 9 97,1 84 1,179,908 See footnotes attached N to j PURATES:sewrate /dfs Sewer Utility : Operating Expenses = Operating Revenues SS2 03- Oct -91 1991 1!992 1993 1994 1995;::: 1996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 130,270 125,000 128,750 132,613 136,591 140,689 Contractual Service 270,200 200,000 210,000 220,500 231,525 243,101 Supplies & Materials 14,600 15,330 16,096 16,901 17,746 18,634 Heat, Light, & Power 18,000 18,900 19,845 20,837 21,879 22,973 Depreciation Expense 219,590 169,000 184,000 214,000 214,000 214,000 Subtotal: City O &M Expense $652,660.00 $528,230.00 $558,691.50 $604,851.07 $621,741.38 $639,396.63 MWCC Charges $1,309,645.00 $1,444,165.00 $1,512,160.00 $1,602,889.60 $1,699,062.98 $1,801,006.75 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,962 $1,972,395.00 $2,070 $2,207 $2 $2,440 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,577,762 $1,771,280 $1,965,291 $2,097,372 $2,230,363 $2,364,296 Residential Accts 6,865 6,840 6,815 6,790 6,765 6,740 Quarterly Charge $31.50 $35:25 $39.QQ X41.50 $44.00 . > $46.50 Senior Accts 1,600 1,625 1,650 1,675 1,700 1,725 Quarterly Charge $17.33 $19.39 $21.45 $22.83 < ;2420 $25:58 Apartment Accts 3,537 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 Quarterly Charge $22.05 $24.68 $27.30 $29.05 $30.80 $32.55 Non - residential Water 230,000 234,600 239,300 244,100 249,000 254,000 RATE PER 1000 GAL $1.26 $1,41 $1.56 $1.66 $1.76 $1.86 3) Miscellaneous Operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings 146,448 147,246 88,569 74,112 79,346 55 036 TOTAL REVENUES $1,744,210 $1,938,526 $2,073,860 $2 $2 $2 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS $218,095 $33,869 $3,009 $16 257 $8,905 $1,071 6 1/2 Interest Earnin s 146,448 147 88,569 74,1 79,346 5 5 , 036 NET' >INCOME OR LOSS ; $71,646 $113,377 $91,578 $57,855 $88,252 ;$53;965; 1991 t992 1993 1994: 1995 1,996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,661,206 $3,681,150 $2,214,227 $1,852,805 $1,983,660 $1,375,912 8) Capital Outlay (128,000) (1,749,300) (637,000) (141,000) (910,000) (142,500) 9) Net Income or Loss (71,646) 113,377 91,578 57,855 88,252 53,965 10) Depreciation Add -back 219,590 169,000 184,000 214,000 214,000 214,000 11 } End 'of Year Cash &Inv $3,681,150 $2,214,227 $1,852,805 $1,988,660 $1,375,912 $1,501,377' Restricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unrestricted Investments 3 1 914 227 1,552 1 683 660 1,075 1 201 377 See footnotes attached N N PURATES:sewrate /dfs Sewer Utility : Phase Out Interest Subsidy 20% /Year SS3 03- Oct -91 1991 1992 1993 1994! 1995 ! 1996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 130,270 125,000 128,750 132,613 136,591 140,689 Contractual Service 270,200 200,000 210,000 220,500 231,525 243,101 Supplies & Materials 14,600 15,330 16,096 16,901 17,746 18,634 Heat, Light, & Power 18,000 18,900 19,845 20,837 21,879 22,973 Depreciation Expense 219,590 169,000 184,000 214,000 214,000 214,000 Subtotal: City O &M Expense $652,660.00 $528,230.00 $558,691.50 $604,851.07 $621,741.38 $639,396.63 MWCC Charges $1,309,645.00 $1,444,165.00 $1,512,160.00 $1,602,889 $1,699,062.98 1 801 00 6.75 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,962,305.00 $1,972,395.00 $2,070,851.50 $2,207 $2 $2 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,577,762 $1,796,405 $2,015,683 $2,160,546 $2,293,726 $2,427,852 Residential Accts 6,865 6,840 6,815 6,790 6,765 6,740 Quarterly Charge $31;.50 $35.75 $4D.D9 ;42.75 $45.25 $4775 ;i Senior Accts 1,600 1,625 1,650 1,675 1,700 1,725 Quarterly Charge $17.33.:: $19.66 $22.00 $23.51 $24,89 . $ 26!;27 Apartment Accts 3,537 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 Quarterly Charge $22.05 $25.03 $28.00 $29.93 $31.68 $33.43 Non - residential Water 230,000 234,600 239,300 244,100 249,000 254,000 RATE 'PER 1000 GAL $1`.26 $1.43 $1.60 $1.71 ! $1.81 $1.91 3) Miscellaneous Operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) Interest Earnings 146,448 117,797 53,744 30,885 17,045 TOTAL REVENUES $1 $1 $2 $2 $2,330 $2 447 852 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS $218,095 $38,193 $18,576 $3,690 $9,966 $7,449 6 Interest Earnings 146,448 176,695 125 123 153 127,834 NET INCOME OR LOSS.$71,646 $138,502 $143,980 $127,231 $163,366 $135,283 1991 1992 1993 1994 is 1995 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,661,206 $3,681,150 $2,239,351 $1,930,331 $2,130,563 $1,597,929 8) Capital Outlay (128,000) (1,749,300) (637,000) (141,000) (910,000) (142,500) 9) Net Income or Loss (71,646) 138,502 143,980 127,231 163,366 135,283 10) Depreciation Add -back 219,590 169,000 184,000 214,000 214,000 214,000 11) End of Year Cash &Inv :0 681,'1!50 $2,239,351 $1,930,331 $2,130,5fi3 $1,597,929 $1,804,712 Restricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unrestricted Investments 3 1 939 351 1,630 1 830 563 1,297,929 1 504 712 See footnotes attached Cl) W 0 0 0 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY FOOTNOTES 1. Operations Personal service: The costs of full and part time labor and benefits. Contractual service: Administrative costs such as LOGIS charges, postage, insurance, administrative services, and contracted repairs. Supplies and materials: Office supplies, repair and maintenance supplies, safety equipment, degreaser, uniform cleaning. Heat, light, and power: NSP and Minnegasco charges for lift stations, etc. Depreciation expense: A method of financing fixed assets over the anticipated life of the asset. Straight -line depreciation is used, meaning the asset is depreciated in equal installments. Any new fixed asset ( such as a new lift station) is added to the total for the fixed asset category (mains and lines, structures, equipment, land, and construction in progress). Any addition or repair to an existing fixed asset that adds to the life of the asset (such as sewer line repair) is also added. MWCC charges: Charge by MWCC, based on sewage flow. 2. Billing Revenues Residential accounts: The quarterly fee is calculated by multiplying the number of accounts by the average water use of 274 gallons per day times 365 days, divided by 1000. That total flow is multiplied by the rate per 1000 gallons, for the total residential charge. That total is divided by the number of accounts, then by four for a quarterly charge. Senior accounts: Seniors may request the senior sewer rate, which is 55% of the residential rate. Accounts are assumed to increase by 25 per year. Apartment Accounts: Apartments are charged 70% of the residential rate per unit. Non - residential water: Commercial and other non - residential accounts are charged based on actual water consumption in the winter quarters. 3. Misc. Operating Revenues Revenues from other fees and charges, such as meter rentals. 4. Misc. Non - operating Revenues Revenues from other sources. 5. 1/2 Interest Earnings Restricted and unrestricted assets are invested in the City's Investment Trust Fund. Interest is earned at about eight percent per year. PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS Operating revenues minus operating expenditures, plus 1/2 interest revenue. Numbers in parens are losses. 6. 1/2 Interest Earnings See #5 above. NET INCOME OR LOSS Projected operating income or loss, plus 1/2 interest income. A positive is a net gain in retained earnings, while a negative is a net loss to the fund. 7. Start of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted ( "cash on hand ") assets. Investments 8. Capital Outlay The estimated cost of anticipated capital projects. 9. Net Income or Loss From above; the net operating impact on the fund. 10. Bond Debt Retired Annual bond payment. 11. Depreciation Add -back Depreciation is "added back" because it is not a true cash outlay. Because it is treated as an expense for rate - setting purposes, some capital outlay is paid for from water charges, and the outlays in excess of that are paid from cash reserves. 12. End of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted assets, after considering #8 -11. C Investments p Restricted Assets: $3.7 million reserved for partial funding of a future water treatment plant. Unrestricted Assets: All non - restricted assets. "Cash on hand." O M 0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Brooklyn Center City Charter that Brooklyn Center's municipal utilities be self- sustaining entities through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees, and charges; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the financial requirements of the Sanitary Sewer Utility and has developed a recommended rate schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following schedule of Sanitary Sewer Utility fees will be in effect as of January 1, 1992: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff are hereby directed to review the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission fees to be charged Brooklyn Center in 1993 to determine if any fee increase would require adjustment of this rate schedule. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE 1. Quarterly Residential Rates YEAR SINGLE FAMILY APARTMENT SENIOR CITIZEN 1991 $31.50 $22.05 $17.33 1992 $35.75 $25.03 $19.66 1993 $40.00 $28.00 $22.00 2. Non - Residential Rates RATE PER RATE PER YEAR 1000 GALLONS FIXTURE UNIT 1991 $1.26 $2.00 1992 $1.43 $2.25 0 1993 $1.60 $2.50 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. lib Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Brooklyn Center City Charter that Brooklyn Center's municipal utilities be self- sustaining entities through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees, and charges; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the financial requirements of the Sanitary Sewer Utility and has developed a recommended rate schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following schedule of Sanitary Sewer Utility fees will be in effect as of January 1, 1992. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff are hereby directed to review the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission fees to be charged Brooklyn Center in 1993 to determine if any fee increase would require adjustment of this rate schedule. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE 1. Quarterly Residential Rates YEAR SINGLE FAMILY APARTMENT SENIOR CITIZEN 1991 $31.50 $22.05 $17.33 1992 $35.25 $24.68 $19.39 1993 $39.00 $27.30 $21.45 2. Non - Residential Rates RATE PER RATE PER YEAR 1000 GALLONS FIXTURE UNIT 1991 $1.26 $2.00 1992 $1.41 $2.25 1993 $1.56 $2.50 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 I0n191 • Agenda Item Number Z 6 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /atta ed SUND IARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes City Council Resolution Number 90 -246 established the City's Storm Drainage • Utility and its rate schedule. Since that time, staff have refined cost estimates related to storm drainage u d have conducted a g utility activities an review of those rates to determine their continued adequacy. The refined cost estimates incorporate those capital expenditures idenetified in the Captial Improvement Program as expected to be funded from Storm Drainage Utility funds. Summary' The rate schedule adopted in 1990 was based on the following objectives: o That the base charge would be a single rate per acre per quarter; o That individual properties would be classified as a particular land use, and that these land uses would classified based on Residential Equivalent Factors. These REFS would compare the hydrologic response of land use types to the average residential land use, and would be based on established engineering standards; O That the fee charged an individual property per quarter would be calculated by multiplying the parcel's size in acres times the base rate times its assigned REF; • o That the fee would be charged all parcels in Brooklyn Center except public rights of way and vacant, unimproved land. • Utilizing these criteria, the rate schedule established by resolution 90 -246 for 1992 will not adequately support expected 1992 expenditures. The rate schedule made no provision for rate increases in 1992 or beyond. Revenue requirements for the utility are expected to double as the City begins a program of repair or replacement of defective sections of the drainage system and to construct new or upgrade the capacity of existing sections of the system. Two particular problem areas which have been brought to the Council's attention in the past year, drainage problems on 57th Avenue and on 63rd Avenue, have already been identified as potential projects. The table labelled SD1 shows the projected effect of the existing rate schedule. Recommendation It is recommended that the base rate be increased to $18.00 per acre in 1992 and to $24.00 per acre in 1993. The tables labelled SD2 shows the projected effect of the recommended rate schedule. The full schedule would be as follows: ESTABLISHED RATE RECOMMENDED RATE Y EAR Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Base Rate Residential Base Rate Residential • Per Acre Rate Per Lot Per Acre Rate Per Lot 1991 $12.00 $3.00 $12.00 $3.00 1992 $12.00 $3.00 $18.00 $4.50 1993 $12.00 $3.00 $24.00 $6.00 The recommended rates are reasonable when compared to the rates of other cities. Residential City Rate Per Quarter Richfield $7.75 Brooklyn Park $5- 7.00 ** Apple Valley $6.25 Edina $5.00 BROOKLYN CENTER $4.50 Roseville $4.38 Robbinsdale $3.00 Fridley* $1.75 * Fridley funds only its Watershed District annual . allocations from its utility revenues. ** Proposed for 1992. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss the two options presented: no change in approved rates, and increasing rates. The first option requires no action. A resolution is provided should the Council wish to adopt the second option. • • PURATES:strmrate\dfs Storm Drainage Utility: Current Rate Schedule S D 1 01- Oct -91 .. 1991 1992 1993' 1994 1995 Y996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations $141,700 $220,000 $147,500 $150,000 $152,500 $155,000 Storm Sewer Maintenance 40,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Sweeping 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Watershed District Dues 36,700 40,000 42,500 45,000 47,500 50,000 Local Plan 25,000 75,000 0 0 0 0 Public Education 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2) Capital Outlay $63,000 $250,000 $691,000 $485,000 $525,000 $415,000 Repair or Replace Defective Sections 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Purchase Maintenance Equipment 0 0 65,000 0 130,000 0 Watershed /Developer Projects 63,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 45,000 Residential Street Drainage Upgrades 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 WaterQuality Improvement Projects 0 0 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Street Improvement Projects 0 0 326,000 135,000 45,000 45,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $204 $470 $838 $635,000 $677 $570 REVENUES 3) Billing Revenues $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 REF Acres 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 BASE RATE PER ACRE $12 00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00; Residential rate per lot $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 Schools & govt buildings per acre $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Multiple family & churches per acre $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 Commercial and industrial per acre $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 4) Interest Earnings 1 0 8,584 (3,369) (45,759) (75,260) 110 520 TOTAL REVENUES $312 $320 $308 $266 $236 $201 480 PROJECTED INCOME.OR LOSS $107,300 $149;416 $529,869 $368,759 $440;760 $368 520 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $0 $107,300 ($42,116) ($571,985) ($940,744) ($1,381,504 9) Net Income or Loss 107,300 (149,416) (529,869) (368,759) (440,760) (368,520) 12); End of Year Cash &Inv . $ 107,300 ($42,116) ($571,985) ($940,744) ($'1,381;;504) ($1,750,024 N v PURATES:strmrate \cfs Storm Drainage Utility: Expenses = Revenues SD2 01- Oct -91 1991.: 1992 1993> 1994 1995 1996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations $141,700 $220,000 $147,500 $150,000 $152,500 $155,000 Storm Sewer Maintenance 40,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Sweeping 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Watershed District Dues 36,700 40,000 42,500 45,000 47,500 50,000 Local Plan 25,000 75,000 0 0 0 0 Public Education 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2) Capital Outlay $63,000 $250,000 $691,000 $577,000 $557,000 $425,000 Repair or Replace Defective Sections 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Purchase Maintenance Equipment 0 0 65,000 0 130,000 0 Watershed /Developer Projects 63,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 45,000 Residential Street Drainage Upgrades 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 0 0 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Street Improvement Projects 0 0 326,000 135,000 45,000 45,000 Internal Borrowing 92,000 32,000 10,000 REVENUES TOTAL EXPENDITURES $204,700 $470,000 $838,500 $727,000 $709 $580 000 3) Billing Revenues $312,000 $468,000 $624,000 $702,000 $702,000 $702,000 REF Acres 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 BASE RATE PER ACRE $12'.00 $18.00 $24.00 $27.OU $27,00 $27.00 Residential rate per lot $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 $6.75 $6.75 $6.75 Schools & govt buildings per acre $15.00 $22.50 $30.00 $33.75 $33.75 $33.75 Multiple family & churches per acre $36.00 $54.00 $72.00 $81.00 $81.00 $81.00 Commercial and industrial per acre $60.00 $90.00 $120.00 $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 4) Interest Earnings 0 8,584 9,111 360 (2,56Q) 800 TOTAL REVENUES $312,000 $476,584 $633111 $694,640 $699 $701 200 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS ,$107,300 $6,584 ($205,389) ($32,360) ($10,060) ' $121,2001 1991 '' 1992 1993':: 1994 1995 '! 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $0 $107,300 $113,884 $495 $135 $75 6) Net Income or Loss 107,300 6,584 (205,389) (32,360) (10,060) 121,200 7) !End off ear Cash! &Inv $1Q7,300 $1(3,884 ($91,505) ($31,865) ($9,925) $121,275 N v N Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Brooklyn Center City Charter that Brooklyn Center's municipal utilities be self- sustaining entities through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees, and charges; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the financial requirements of the Storm Drainage Utility and has developed a recommended rate schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following schedule of Storm Drainage fees will be in effect as of January 1, 1992: CHARGE PER QUARTER PER ACRE CLASSIFI- CATION LAND USE 1991 1992 1993 Base Rate $12.00 $18.00 $24.00 1 Cemeteries, Golf $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 Courses 2 Parks $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 3 Single Family, $3.00/ $4.50/ $6.00/ Duplex, Townhouse lot lot lot 4 Schools, Government $15.00 $22.50 $30.00 Buildings 5 Multiple Family, $36.00 $54.00 $72.00 Churches 6 Commercial and $60.00 $90.00 $120.00 Industrial 7 Vacant Land As As As Assigned Assigned Assigned 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 I0/ Agenda Item Number / Q REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT POLICIES (DISCUSSION ITEM) DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp irector 4 Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes The attached report is submitted to provide a basis for preliminary review and discussion of the City's residential street maintenance and improvement programs and p olic" • ies. This City has historically provided a high level of street maintenance. However, the costs of providing that level of maintenance continues to increase as the streets get older (the average street in Brooklyn Center is approximately 30 years old, and has not had a major upgrade since construction). Additionally, the lack of concrete curbs and gutters "creates an unkempt appearance... (with) no clear definition between streets and yards" (Maxfield's report on the Brooklyn Center Housing Market). The lack of curbs and gutters also hastens deterioration of the street, and increases maintenance costs. This report provides an overview of the subject matter, discusses costs and potential sources of financing, and recommends development of a program based on citizen participation in the development of a technical "pavement management system" (PMS). Specifically, the report recommends: • that, for the immediate future, funding levels for the street maintenance program be maintained at a level which assures an acceptable level of maintenance on all streets. • that a Pavement Maintenance System (PMS) software program be purchased in 1992 and implemented as soon as possible - to assure the City's ability to make long -term cost effective decisions regarding street maintenance and improvements. This includes the need to "let go" of a seriously deteriorated street (by providing a minimum level of maintenance instead of • an extraordinary level of repair) for several years prior to its scheduled reconstruction. • that consideration be given to initiation of a street improvement program in the southeast neighborhood in 1992, to an expanded improvement program covering other neighborhoods starting in 1993, and to development of a financing plan which will assure the City's ability to achieve the desired goals. • that a process of citizen participation be established, to assure public support for the City's maintenance and improvement program. • that, in the long term, the City's street maintenance and improvement policies and programs be based on (1) citizen participation, and (2) the technical data available from a PMS system. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review... Discuss... Feedback... Provide direction to staff... • • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BYROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 3, 1991 RE: Street Maintenance and Improvement Policies Current Street Maintenance Program The City of Brooklyn Center is responsible for construction and maintenance of the 105 miles of streets which are under its jurisdiction. Of these streets, 21 miles are designated as Municipal State Aid streets (see attached map showing MSAS system), while the remaining 84 miles are classified as "local" streets. The City has historically provided a high -level street maintenance program on all City streets. Under this program, street patching and repairs are accomplished whenever signs of deterioration (chuckholes, cracking, settlement, rough edges, etc.) become evident. And all streets are sealcoated approximately once every 7 years. Total costs for this level of maintenance, including overhead and administration is estimated at $650,000 per year (this does not include signing, street sweeping, storm sewer maintenance, snowplowing, street lights, traffic signals, tree care, or any other costs not directly related to pavement maintenance. Because the average age of the City's streets is approximately 30 years, the costs for maintaining these streets are beginning to rise rapidly, and the City's ability to maintain an acceptable level of service is declining (same number of street department employees as in 1980, but older streets continue to get older). One major factor which contributes to the deterioration of the City's streets is the lack of concrete curbs and gutters. It is my understanding that City Councils in the 1940's, 50's and 60's deliberately elected not to install concrete curbs and gutters - to reduce costs, and to "distinguish Brooklyn Center from Minneapolis ". While that decision may have been effective at that time, the long -term reality is that streets without curb and gutter deteriorate faster - especially at their edges because of poor drainage and cars frequently driving over the weak edge of the pavement - and onto the boulevard areas. isasu.iwwc�arr October 3, 1991 Page Two As stated in the 1989 "Brooklyn Center Housing Market" study prepared by the Maxfield Research Group: "...the lack of curb and gutter along all residential blocks (with the exception of the collector streets) creates an "unkempt" appearance on many blocks. This is despite the best intentions of property owners, many of whom maintain their properties well. The most notable perceptual problem with the lack of curb and gutter is along 53rd Avenue North. Looking south from 53rd Avenue North, all Minneapolis streets have curb and gutter (as well as sidewalks), whereas the blocks in Brooklyn Center have no clear definition between the streets and yards. We believe that this presents a worse visual image than that of Minneapolis." Pre -1985 Policies Regarding Street Improvements Prior to 1985 the City's policy regarding street improvements in residential areas was that: • on local (i.e. non -MSAS) streets, all costs would be specially assessed to benefitting property owners, • on MSAS streets, property owners would be assessed at rates equal to those for non -MSAS streets, while MSAS funds would pay the increased costs for constructing those streets to MSAS standards. Under that policy the only projects completed were those which the City Council initiated, and all were improvements to the MSAS system. Because the City annually receives MSAS funding ($830,00 in 1991) for improvements to the MSAS system, we are able to provide a reasonably adequate improvement program to keep that system upgraded. However, that is not the case for local street projects. Revised Policy Adopted in 1985 In 1985 the City Council revised the policy to provide that, for residential street reconstruction, including the installation of concrete curb and gutter, the City would annually establish a "unit rate" of assessment for "residential properties, zoned or used as single family sites, which are not subdividable under the City's subdivision ordinance." That rate was established at $1200 per unit in 1985 and has been adjusted annually, using the "ENR Construction Cost Index" to a 1991 rate of $1415 per unit. That rate is based on the Council's intent to specially assess approximately one -third (33 %) of the average cost for reconstruction of a residential street. Note Actual costs for reconstruction will vary greatly from street to street. Accordingly, usage of the fixed unit rate may recover anywhere between 20% and 50% of the costs for a given improvement. On average, however, the current rate would recover approximately 30 to 35% of actual costs. October 3, 1991 Page Three In addition to establishing the unit rate of assessment for street reconstruction projects, the 1985 Council also decided that non -MSAS street improvement projects should be initiated by petition of property owners, not by the City Council. Since adoption of that policy in 1985 only two residential street reconstruction projects have been initiated by petition of property owners, approved by Council and completed. Proposed Pavement Management System One item included in the 1992 Data Processing Department's budget request is the purchase of a Pavement Management System (PMS) software program. Our reasons for recommending the purchase and implementation of this program include: • It will help to "fine tune" the City's sealcoating program by better forecasting which street segments will benefit and which can wait. • It will provide a documented basis for deciding whether to continue to repair a street segment or to reconstruct it (i.e. - PMS has the ability to predict when it is no longer cost effective to continue to maintain the street). • It has the ability to maintain a tree inventory, as well as an inventory of roads, sidewalks, trails, bridges, etc. • It will be integrated into the total public works information management system which will include automated mapping, a public utilities management system, a vehicle management system and other MIS applications. As such, a PMS system will assure the City's ability to develop the most cost effective, long -term street maintenance program to document the needs and to provide a sound basis for development of a street improvement program While we believe a PMS system is very important to the long -term cost effectiveness of a street maintenance program, it must be recognized that it will take 1 to 3 years to fully implement such a system. Estimated Costs for Street Reconstruction City Engineer Mark Maloney has estimated that the costs for residential street reconstruction will vary between $200,000 /mile and $500,000 /mile, depending on the type of improvements needed, i.e.: Type I - install curb & gutter, w /minor $200,000 /mile drainage adjustments, patching and overlay October 3, 1991 Page Four Type II - same as Type I, but with minor $300,000 / * mile regrading, etc. Type III - complete reconstruction $400,000 to $500,000/ * mile Note These estimates do not include the costs for major improvements to the storm drainage system, to water or sanitary sewer systems, or for major "streetscape" improvements. On this basis, it would cost $25 to $30 million to reconstruct all 81 miles of non -MSAS streets in the City... not including the cost of related utility improvements. Financing Options Following is a listing of existing and potential financing sources: Source Comments Special Assessments Must be based on provable "...increase in market value" of the benefitted properties. (Note: discussions with our City Assessor, and with a qualified independent real estate appraiser have indicated that the City's current rate does reflect actual increases in market value of the properties. General Obligation Bonds Under state law, cities are allowed to finance public improvements with the sale of G.O. bonds, without an election, if at least 20% of the total cost of the improvement is defrayed by special assessments Under this option, the tax levy needed to pay the non - assessed portion of the costs are excluded from the City's levy limits. Infrastructure Replacement Reserve Fund A city may, after holding a public hearing on the question, establish an infrastructure replacement reserve fund. This reserve fund may be used to finance the replacement of streets, bridges, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, trees, and storm sewers. When a tax is proposed to be levied for this fund, city residents are given the option of requesting by petition that the levy be considered by referendum vote in a regular or special election. October 3, 1991 Page Five The principle advantage of this mechanism is that it can be used to finance a variety of improvements. However, a tax levied for this fund is subject to the property tax levy limitations. Robbinsdale has established an Infrastructure Fund to help fund improvements to streets, curbs, and gutters. Street permit fees are deposited into this fund, as is the city's state aid maintenance allocation. No tax has been levied, but it may be in the future, especially if levy limitations are lifted. Roseville finances its street overlay program through its infrastructure fund. It levies a tax totalling about $100,000 annually. Local MSA Accounts 2600 & 2611 These funds have traditionally been dedicated primarily for the purpose of constructing the City's sidewalk and trail systems. The sources for these funds are (1) fund balances from regular MSAS projects which result from charging special assessments on projects which are also funded by MSAS funds; and (2) interest earned on local MSA fund balances. Because of the City's aggressive MSAS regular improvement program, and because of the reduced revenues from special assessments levied on regular MSAS projects, this is a very limited resource which has a very limited ability to replenish itself. In recent years, some of these funds have been used to pay the City's share of certain street improvements. We currently estimate that the unencumbered balance available in these two funds is $2.4 million. Staff recommends that the majority of these funds still remain dedicated for improvements to the City's sidewalk and trail systems. However, it October 3, 1991 Page Six may be appropriate to use up to $500,000 of these funds as "seed money" to expedite the development of a street improvement program if other sources are expected to become available to continue such a program. Storm Drainage Utility Funds This funding source, adopted by the City in 1991 provides funding for improvements to storm drainage systems. Because nearly all street improvement projects require adjustments to storm drainage systems, (or major storm drainage system improvements) it is appropriate to charge those costs to the City's SDU fund. In addition, it may be possible to justify a small part of the costs for curb and gutter construction to the SDU fund on the basis of anticipated water quality improvements. CDBG Funds The City currently receives approximately $200,000 per year of these federal funds which must be utilized to benefit low and moderate income segments of the community. Primarily, these funds have been used for the purpose of selective clearance, home improvement grants, energy conservation projects, etc. Brad Hoffman suggests that possibly up to $50,000 per year of CDBG funds could be used on a street improvement program so long as it can be shown to benefit low and moderate income residents. It is suggested that these funds could be set aside to provide relief from special assessments for low income residents. By providing relief to low income residents, a special assessment policy becomes much less onerous. Utility Franchise Fees The 1991 legislature allowed cities to (a potential source) establish franchise fees to be applied to either electrical utility fees or to natural gas utility fees. If the City of Brooklyn Center adopted such a franchise fee, a portion of those revenues could be dedicated to a street improvement program. October 3, 1991 Page Seven Transportation Utility Funds The 1992 legislature will probably again (a potential source) consider allowing cities to adopt a transportation utility. The League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Cities have endorsed the concept and are supporting its enactment. If enabling legislation is enacted by the legislature, and adopted by the City Council, this could provide a substantial funding source. Getting Started Without other considerations, the normal approach to developing an improvement program would be to select those streets which are in the poorest physical /structural condition to be reconstructed first. On that basis, staff believes the first area to be selected would be the residential streets west of Brooklyn Boulevard and north of 69th Avenue. However, staff recognizes the validity of the following statement in Maxfield's Housing Market study: "To strengthen the appeal of individual neighborhoods... As street work is scheduled, begin to improve neighborhood streets with curb and gutter, beginning with the southeast neighborhood. Curb and gutter makes residential property more attractive, and this improvement is most needed in the southeast neighborhood because it is an older area which can most benefit from this visual improvement." Accordingly, staff recommends priority consideration of a program within a selected segment of the southeast neighborhood. As soon as possible thereafter, the program should be expanded to include other residential areas of the City - including the area west of Brooklyn Boulevard and north of 69th Avenue. While it appears that continued reliance on public petitions will not achieve the desired results, it is recognized that a process of citizen participation is essential to the success of any improvement program. Accordingly, staff suggests that the Financial Task Force and /or the Earle Brown Neighborhood Committee, and possibly other groups be asked to participate in developing a street improvement program. Staff believes that it would be possible to develop a relatively small (1/2 mile to 1 -1/2 mile) street improvement program for implementation in 1992. October 3, 1991 Page Eight Recommendation To provide a sound basis for a future street maintenance and improvement program, it is recommended: • that, for the immediate future, funding levels for the street maintenance program be maintained at a level which assures an acceptable level of maintenance on all streets. • that a Pavement Maintenance System (PMS) software program be purchased in 1992 and implemented as soon as possible to assure the City's ability to make long -term cost effective decisions regarding street maintenance and improvements. This includes the need to "let go" of a seriously deteriorated street (by not doing extraordinary level of repairs) for several years prior to its scheduled reconstruction. • that consideration be given to initiation of a street improvement program in the southeast neighborhood in 1992, to an expanded improvement program covering other neighborhoods starting in 1993, and to development of a financing plan which will assure the City's ability to achieve the desired goals. • that a process of citizen participation be established, to assure public support for the City's maintenance and improvement program. • that, in the long term, the City's street maintenance and improvement policies and programs be based on (1) citizen participation, and (2) the technical data available from a PMS system. Conclusion This report is presented to provide a basis for discussion of this issue. Staff will welcome the opportunity to present this matter to the City Council, and to develop such follow -up information, and to provide support for such citizen participation programs as the City Council may select. BROOKLYN PARK ' ly s YD, wD IS /0 i 1" t LXl f _ �_ s ti AY L I� I ^ �. (N .` r "YL. {;f��illl[lllll 1 CRYSTAL �\ \' I � 9PLN j m or u iR r YL — I \.i•r� I Yt LLLI 1 0 1Fi _Jrr lL -- - �' \l\ 01 tts��l•�t „ � ���� ,b '::..iwc. � 5 Jat _ -t �a �6�0� „�..� � _ ` "vr I � - % ! 1. a a _ lun' c% � __ -Iln__ Inm_nne _AVC ..I�� o .. u� O I mf .I� d' , CLT \ � s `r{ ( Y:ItlOCIfN(... J :_� `n.L i.,� �I_ < - _. _ �N•nL_117 DN. 4 o 69T -AR. I v �tS� G r LIP ft En Al , 'O L M1 " < 1 tI� `` ]< (_rN.r1{b <JJr .:JJ.��. }:....•� - oozy _ p 5 8 \ O rt.Nr[ r a! f DMItLSL� .. L.JL t l l _ n� yr. td� •�� 9 °: i Y e M��l f re.N L ( - -- Yt. m J� I ` UM10E U IL I t yrp� p ND9.Xr4" �Ifl "_- �� �cHO_ " p� 1 ^ -_- \.. ✓ / /� +/ '{ J1 �( \1 +N �, �� , � ...-- ,�yr o �ta•___.1 ( r 1 (/, Ir� _ � � tt�.( 111 �r'A' �/$ '7�L'• `'�G l/' I� r5 ! "—�/ ,N �� Lr - - ' >I � t_IN .pOp,/� 0_°9L �Ot'L', �� % ly . v / y a ^ � n _ t ._. � �LML$1j C1YL �� • uJ �y�� f 1 llo ` � J�. O i '1 ,,"j� ----� 601 „�I 11. I he alt)lu• N._ I( I4 f -y���l `� 4�_1OS69 6700:, �+ II g YIX CLn[I( - [ N I U•IUN •V[. = Yl i,�. ,` U �,['" ' G� t 1 3 •', �I `� r' Ab e 1' ✓/ � \ `44 { •Uf S1 ll . � • � ; . 4�%`.� N [ "_ i� •, `N r �+ ' ° �t r J 1 F ti� . t NLw 1.11 -M � z 05l t I i, ��� Xd e f t 7 � \\ ` ywD N sltzJl c to ' ` I VY L44 �g -__ .. J I L v 1pp{ °f: "• rU. Ai.. + Vic= ar4 I L ° oo ENPX_ . N — N �..� •'`II I�' s L�il n. )' \MAR PLI_���� - d'!7d17._lYi.N _� •yLsl( Il.__)( __ nS N - ,v° b ��1 rtut - f F -ti It ;0 0 J It ( 4,00" 7 r I 4 ' °'�.J y60 01C . m __.390 9 OOLIh��,Dy 00901 - Q pN n�OB�( AO _JIU 777 1 _ _ �� - - -` tiYf..�� I� l� �g'4 ! �p ` 1G s � �• c_ELI/D_nt &L N. + - � • f M Fl 1 t , AY C N I Y soN � L 7� p ' - 4 1 IP - 1( JL K � I(wt . -- � NIIM... J J f eg )r -_) itl o J .N. _ I . II - � � 1( Jr - _ w I , Ira '•" 1a -- WA ; L ;" _ a _ x E n I �ALDCR1tlp{., _.._. 1 1_AYC. JI? N �e . 1 �I .� [@p� Ira o..I[. E •YL.�� e •NnT N ve'N A 6 _ _ �I. C �I U ,vL - tp_41n �F 1 -� f ��uwut...nxLJ� n '" 90 I \ D g 2 Z (.�J N� 6 zl MI$SI$$IPEI \, Alvf Nl'alr AD DO x0,3 FRIDLEY S— !J.lJy, Y 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/7 • Agenda Item Number /1/1�zl REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON WEST RIVER ROAD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18, CONTRACT 1989 - DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, ector ofYublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: a No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • Contract 1989 -I, Reconstruction of West River Road, between 66th and 73rd Ave. No., has been completed by Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. The City Council accepted their low bid per Resolution No. 90 -115 and a contract was subsequently executed. The City Council, with Resolution No. 90 -257, has also approved two change orders for items of work not originally included in the contract.. Due to an underestimation of quantities, the actual final value of work exceeds the original contract, plus approved change orders, by $ 4,452.17. The attached letter to the City Engineer from SEH, the City's project consultant, explains which items of work were responsible for the cost overrun. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. Regarding costs for engineering services, the contract between SEH and the City identified two phases of work to be performed. The fees billed for Phase I services, which include the original feasibility report, preliminary and final design, bidding and award services, equal the maximum as amended by Resolution No. 90 -107 ($ 114,000.00). The fees billed for Phase II services, which by definition are "extra services" and relate to construction, total $ 94,074.54, and exceed the previously amended estimate of $ 73,000. The attached letter from SEH to the Director of Public Works offers a summary of the extra services performed for the project, and staff concurs with the analysis. The attached resolution details the costs for the project, from Engineer's Report • to Final. It is noted that the Total Final Project Costs for Improvement Project 1988 -18 are approximately $ 116,000 less than what was originally estimated in • the Engineer's Report. The costs for Improvement Project 1990 -25, West River Road Landscaping, are running substantially under the $ 100,000 amount originally budgeted. The final costs for landscaping will be analyzed next spring, when the project is complete. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. is attached for consideration. /i0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON WEST RIVER ROAD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18, CONTRACT 1989 -I WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18, CONTRACT 1989 -I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Amended Per Engineer's Original Contract & Project Costs Report Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Contract $1,200,660.00 $1,094,333.98 $1,098,786.15 Contingency 60,000.00 - -- - -- Right -of -Way Acquisition 85,800.00 83,589.56 85,958.16 Underground Electrical System & Street Lights 56,500.00 62,695.00 62,695.00 Engineering (incl. Material Testing, etc.) 174,174.00 223,200.00 216,819.77 Administrative (incl. capital interest) 12,600.00 10,943.34 10,987.86 Legal and Bonding 12,600.00 10,943.34 10,987.86 Total Project Costs (1988 -18) $1,602,334.00 $1,485,705.22 $1,486,234.80 West River Road Landscaping (1990 -25) $ 100,000.00 100,000.00 64,074.82 Total Estimated Project Cost West River Road $1,702,334.00 $1,585,705.22 $1,550,309.62 *Not yet final, estimate 95% complete. RESOLUTION NO. Project Revenues As Amended Per Engineer's Original Contract & Report Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Special Assessments $ 79,402.00 $ 68,593.82 $ 48,691.16 ** Public Utility Fund 70,000.00 85,551.69 59,042.60 Minnesota Dept. of Transp. 677,155.00 658,872.10 673,095.54 Local Municipal State Aid Fund 2611 775.777.00 672.687.61 769 480.32 Total Estimated Project Revenues - West River Road $1,702,334.00 $1,585.705.22 $1,550,309.62 * *Does not include $19,902.66 contested assessments. 2. The value of work actually performed is $ 4,452.17 more than the original contract plus approved change orders, due to an underestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid to the Contractor for said improvements under said contract shall be $ 1,098,786.15. 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. WENGINEERS I ARCHITECTS N PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612490-2000 October 1, 1991 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD RECONSTRUCTION CITY IMPROVEMENT NO. 1988 -18 SEH FILE NO: 89160 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 We have reviewed the engineering costs for the above referenced project for construction observation, project representation and staking. The original cost estimated for these services in the contract was $73,000. The costs for construction services have exceeded the original estimate due to extra services provided and for costs incurred by us due to the needs of the construction work. This letter provides a summary of the extra services and an analysis of the basic services costs. The following is a summary of the extra services preformed by SEH at the request of the City. Extra services are defined in the Standard Agreement for Professional Consulting Services between the City and SEH dated April 18, 1989, under section 5.C. Extra Services: 5.C.1 Prepare Change Order No.l $ 569.25 5.C.1 Revise Signing Plan $ 288.53 5.C.9 Attend Assessment Hearing $ 83.78 5.C.1 Prepare Change Order No. 2 $ 673.29 5.C.15 Noise Monitoring At Bus Stop $ 351.98 5.C.10 As -built Drawings $2145.00 5.C.4 Landscaping Construction Services $9740.18 Total Extra Services $13,850.01 Construction services for the Landscaping contract includes observation and resident project representation not included in the original contract and therefore falls under extra services. The cost for the engineering listed in the above table includes $7640.18 spent to date with $2100.00 estimated to complete the final review and inventory in the spring of 1993. The City's landscaping contractor will complete their contract obligations for maintenance of the planting materials next spring. SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Mr. Sy Knapp October 1. 1991 Page 2 We have further evaluated the engineering costs for the basic engineering services identified under Sections 5.B.2 e,f,g,h,i, and Sections 5.C.2 and 5.C.4 of the Standard Agreement that include observation, project representation and survey staking for the roadway improvement construction project. The actual engineering services cost $7,235.53 more than the estimate. The construction services provide by SEH were calculated based on the project starting in June 1990 and ending in September 1990. The tasks, hours and costs were detailed in the scope of work included in the contract amended to include the construction services for the roadway project. The actual costs versus the estimated costs are summarized as follows: ESTIMATED COST ACTUAL COST Observation of construction $12,725.00 $11,378.61 Resident project representation $45,940.00 $45,021.78 Surveying $11,712.00 $19,795.14 Reimbursable expenses $ 2,100.00 $ 4,027.00 The comparison shows the survey crew time and the expenses exceeded the original estimate in the contract. Even though the construction contract was extended an additional month and a half in the fall of 1990 and was actually completed in the spring of 1992, the observation and project representation services came in under the estimate. If the project had been completed as predicted, perhaps the total estimate would not have been exceeded. We have reviewed the survey crew staking notes and time on the project and feel that their time was necessary and justified to complete the project. The staking notes indicate some additional staking not anticipated when the project was scoped. The work that needed to be staked but not included in the estimate includes staking right -of -way for the gas relocation, slope staking of the berm and staking for the noise wall. Review of the staking also reveals additional trips to the project as required by the contractors operation. Grade staking, utility staking and curb and gutter staking in particular, is dependant on the way the contractor proceeds with his staging of the work and is difficult to predict. In summary, the contract provides for extra services and the basic engineering services for construction to be compensated on a hourly basis times a multiplier of 3.06 which includes fringe benefits, indirect costs and profit, plus the actual cost of reimbursable Mr. Sy Knapp October 1 1991 Page 3 expenses. The total amount of the engineering costs that have exceeded the original estimated amount including extra services total $21,085.54. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these matters at your convenience. Sincerely, S san M. Mason, P.E. * ENGINEERS I ARWA smw MEEWWW HI CHITECTS N PLANNERS 3535 VADNAI T S CENTER DRIVE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612490-2000 October 1, 1991 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD RECONSTRUCTION CITY IMPROVEMENT NO. 1988 -18 SEH FILE NO: 89160 Mr. Mark Maloney, City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Maloney: The final application for payment for the above referenced project submitted by Thomas and Sons Construction contains some variation from the final estimated construction cost submitted to you in the fall of 1990. The items and the increase in the final quantity are not substantial but enough to make a difference in the cost of the final project. Following is a summary of these items: o The 2331 bituminous material for mixture was increased from 94.55 tons to 113.54 tons for a total cost difference of $2,468.70. The percent oil that Thomas was being compen- sated for did not include the oil added to the reelcie mixture as it should, thus accounting for the difference in the tonnage. o The replacement backfill had a difference of 6 tons between last fall's estimate and this year's because of a typing error. o The 6" concrete driveway apron final quantity is 561.12 square yard. The 400 square yard figure used last fall was an estimate only. The difference in cost is $3,705.76. SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWAFALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Mr. Mark Maloney a oney October 1, 1991 Page ##2 O The payment for the painted crosswalks was inadvertently left off on last fall's estimate for the amount of $364.32. These corrections have been made to Thomas and Son's payment and thus account for the difference in the final construction cost. If you have other questions or comments regarding the final pay application and the final quantities, please feel free to contact . me. Sincerely, Sus M. Mason, P.E. SMM /cih CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/7/91 • Agenda Item Number JI b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON CONTRACT FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -08 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 • Improvement Project No. 1991 -08, Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, has been completed by Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. The City Council accepted their low bid per Resolution No. 91 -172 and a contract was subsequently executed. Due to a underestimation of quantities, the actual final value of work exceeds the original contract by $ 8.53. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. Note: The inspection performed by Visu -Sewer confirmed the existence of deteriorated sections of the interceptor sewer which flows north- south, adjacent to the Mississippi River. The repair of this sewer was included in the 1991 -2000 Capital Improvements Program, and is scheduled for 1992. Staff will be presenting a report for this repair project in the near future. In addition, it was discovered that the sewer located under I- 94/694 which flows southerly to Lift Station No. 1 was of a similar material and condition than that which is proposed to be replaced in 69th Ave. No. (24" Corrugated Metal Pipe). The Capital Improvement Program had scheduled this pipe for replacement in 1995. Staff is currently analyzing the report submitted by Visu -Sewer and will make recommendations to the Council regarding the replacement of this sewer, along with the remainder of 24" CMP upstream of Lift Station No. 1 and near Brookdale Shopping Center. r • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. Is attached for consideration. • • / %b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON CONTRACT FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -08 WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -08 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $ 4,025.45 $ 4,033.98 2. The value of work actually performed exceeds the original contract value by $ 8.53, due to a minor underestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $ 4,033.98. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/7/9I Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -C DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, D" ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • The City Council, by Resolution No. 91 -165, authorized Contract 1991 -C, Water Distribution System Improvements, Improvement Project No.. 1990 -03. City Staff have assembled a proposed change order to account for the quantities of work which were beyond the scope of the original contract as previously approved. The following items represent work authorized by the City Engineer and agreed on by the Contractor which occurred outside of the original contract: Proposed Change Order No. 1 Bid Item No. 48 - 24" Butterfly Valve & 72" Manhole $ 6,200.00 ♦ It was determined that this valve (and manhole) would be necessary to allow proper testing and flushing of the newly installed water mains and provide a way to isolate the 24" Steel Water Main in the case of future breaks, leaks or connections. The configuration of water mains in the area in absence at this valve would require Wells 5,7,8 & 9 to be taken "off- line" if a leak or break occurred in the approximately 1,100 linear feet of existing 24" steel main. • Bid Item No. 49 - 30" Butterfly Valve & 84" Manhole $ 8,700.00 ♦ Again, it was recognized that the addition of this valve (and manhole) would allow proper testing and flushing of the proposed water mains, along with providing the above described ability to isolate an important portion of the water supply system in the event of a break or similar emergency. Total Value of Proposed Change Order No. 1 $ 14.900.00 The total value of work added b proposed Change Ord 1 is 4 00 and y p p Cha Order No. $ 1 ,900. g accordingly, the revised contract amount would be $ 514,699.75. The estimated project costs previously reported to the City Council included a 5% contingency amount ($ 24,980.25). The value of the proposed Change Order No. 1, $ 14,900, or 3 %, is within the estimated contingency amount. The attached resolution amends the Project Costs and Estimated Revenues to include the effects of this proposed Change Order. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION t A resolution approving the proposed Change Order is provided for consideration. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -C WHEREAS, the City Council entered into Contract 1991 -C with Glendale Contracting, Inc. for the construction of Improvement Project No. 1990 -03; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined that certain additional items of work should be added to the existing contract; and WHEREAS, the Contract, Glendale Contracting, Inc. has agreed to the prices and quantities for said additional work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Change Order No. 1, Contract 1991 -C, as prepared by the City Engineer, is hereby approved. 2. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1990 -03 is hereby amended from $ 585,941.00 to $ 603,157.00. The estimated project costs are as follows: As Amended For Per Low Bid Change Order #1 Contract $ 499,799.75 $ 514,699.75 Contingency $ 24.980.25 25.735.25 Subtotal Construction $ 524,780.00 $ 540,435.00 Professional Services $ 8,679.00 $ 8,679.00 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 41,982.00 $ 43,235.00 Administration (1 %) $ 5,250.00 $ 5,404.00 Legal (1 %) $ 5.250.00 $ 5.404.00 Total Est. Project Cost $ 585,941.00 $ 603,157.00 3. Financing for Change Order No. 1, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, Water Distribution System Improvement, Contract 1991 -C, shall be from the Public Utilities Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/7/91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -22, CODE CORRECTIONS AT COMMUNITY CENTER, PROVIDING FUNDING THEREFORE AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING THERETO DEPT. APPROVAL: -,14 &44ZZ� S Knapp, irector of Public Works �A MANAGERS REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: 'o No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes In his review of the proposed water slide at the Community Center, Chief Building Official Clay Larson noted that there are a number of existing code deficiencies within the portion of the Community Center which relate directly or indirectly to the use of the proposed water slide. A copy of Clay's 9/19/91 memo to architect Mjorud is attached. After receiving this report, the architect met with City Manager Splinter, Building Official Larson, Recreation Director Mavis and me to review this issue. At this meeting, the following items were discussed: • There is no disagreement that some of the items listed in Clay's memo are deficiencies under current codes, while others represent standards that are currently being developed pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act (these will not be finalized until 1992 but, when finally adopted, will very probably be enforced retroactively, i.e. - on the existing facilities). • Whether or not these standards apply depend on whether the installation of a water slide is regarded as a building modification or simply as the installation of a piece of recreational equipment. • The attached "Memo No. 7" from architect Mjorud summarizes the consensus reached at that meeting regarding each item listed in Clay's memo, and provides a preliminary cost estimate for each item, with a total estimate of $27,000. Accordingly, , staff recommends proceeding with the correction of the code g P g • deficiencies as outlined in "Memo No. 7 ". To facilitate that process, we requested architect Mjorud to submit a proposal for professional services needed in relationship to these improvements. A copy of the proposal from Mjorud Architecture to provide these services at a fixed cost of $2200 is attached. It is my opinion that the proposed charges are fair and reasonable. If this proposal is accepted at this time, it will be possible to accomplish most or all of the physical improvements during the same "shutdown period" (December 2, 1991 to January 24, 1992) during which we expect the pool to be shut down to allow installation of the water slide. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -22, CODE CORRECTIONS AT COMMUNITY CENTER, PROVIDING FUNDING THEREFORE AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that certain improvements should be made at the Community Center to achieve compliance with existing building codes; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has estimated the costs of the improvements as follows: for proposed improvements $30,000 for architectural services relating to improvements 2,200 Estimated Total Costs $32,200 AND WHEREAS, the Capital Projects Fund was established by Resolution No. 68 -246 for the purpose of financing major permanent facilities as needed; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works and the City Manager have recommended that the firm of Mjorud Architecture be employed to provide architectural services as needed relating to these improvements, and have advised the Council that the fees proposed are fair and reasonable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed improvements are hereby approved and will be designated as Improvement Project No. 1991 -22. 2. All costs for this project shall be allocated from the Capital Projects Fund. 3. The proposal submitted by Mjorud Architecture to provide professional services as needed relating to these improvements at a total cost of $2,200 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with said firm on the basis of that proposal. 0 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. MJORUD ARCHITECTURE 12400 12th Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55441.4612 612- 544 -3871 DATE: September 23, 1991 MEMO NO.7 PROJECT: Community Center Water Slide and Concession Stand City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 NUMBER: 91108 SUBJECT: Cost Estimate For Code Corrections BY: Mjorud Architecture Al Mjorud The following is a preliminary cost estimate of the anticipated Code correction for the Community Center building as a result of a Building Code review by Clay Larson, dated September 19, 1991. The following Cost Estimate follows the numerical listing by Mr. Larson: Code Deficiency Identification Cost Estimate 1. No exit currently provided from pool area is in compliance with current UBC requirements. The existing exit doors at 34 " " wide do not comply with the 36 minimum standard, nor the 32" net clear opening; however, Mr. Larson said this ruling could be waived and a decision was reached to leave the doors unchanged. Mr. Larson will investigate the code under jurisdiction when this building was constructed. $ 0.00 2. All exit doors serving an occupant load over 50 in this building must have panic hardware, emergency lighting, and exit signs with back -up power. $ 7,000.00 3. At wading pool observation deck, guardrails are not at 42 ", gate is locked, exit door swings the wrong way, and the handrails on the stair are not grippable. $ 3,100.00 Brooklyn Center Community Center Water Slide Memo No. 7 Page 2 Code Deficiency Identification Cost Estimate 4. Stair from observation deck to upper level: the handrails are not grippable and the guardrails at the top of the stair are not 42" high. $ 1,800.00 5. Door at north end is locked with an electric lock, requires panic hardware, exit sign points occupants to Women's Locker Room, and the door from exercise room obstructs the corridor. $ 1,000.00 6. Doors at southwest corner are not 36" wide, have improper locks, and does not go to a public way. Relocate fence, install stair and fence. $ 10,000.00 7. Exits through Locker Rooms: Unsafe walking surface in locker room, handrail on stair not grippable, and guardrail at top of stair not 42" high. It was determined to leave the 1x1 ceramic tile unchanged and provide all new guardrailings. $ 3,000.00 8. Main exit doors, upper and lower level, have improper locks i and are not 36" wide. $ 2,000.00 9. Toilet rooms on upper and lower level are not handicapped accessible. Deferred 10. Toilet rooms and locker room are not accessible to the handicapped. Deferred 11. Building lacks elevator or ramp for access from upper level to lower level - -- -going outside for access is not acceptable. Deferred TOTAL ESTIMATE $ 27,900.00 Distribution: S Knapp pP Arnie Mavis Clay Larson Rudin Structures OLB Files (2) MEMORANDUM TO: Al Mjorud, Mjorud Architecture FROM: Clay Larson, Building Official DATE: 19 SEPT 91 SUBJECT: Civic Center Exiting and Code Evaluation related to installation of new water slide at pool OCCUPANCY .... A -2.1 OCCUPANT LOAD ..... 750 plus These facts and observations are to be considered; 1. No exit currently provided from pool area is in compliance with current UBC requirements 2. All exit doors serving an occupant load over 50 in this building must have; panic hardware - emergency lighting exit signs with back -up power 3. At wading pool observation deck; - guardrails are not 42" - gate is locked - exit door swings the wrong way - handrails on stair are not grippable 4. Stair from observation deck to upper level; - handrails not grippable - guardrails at top of stair not 42" high 5. Door at north end; - locked with electric lock, requires panic hardware - exit sign points occupants to women's locker room - door from exercise room obstructs corridor 6. Doors at SW corner; - Are not 36" wide - has improper locks - does not go to a public way 7. Exits through locker rooms; - unsafe walking surface in locker room - handrail on stair not grippable - guardrail at top of stair not 42" high - lacks exit width of 36" at turnstile Civic center page 2 8. Main exit doors upper and lower level - have improper locks -upper - are not 36" wide -lower 9. Toilet rooms on upper and lower level are not accessible to h'cap; - doors lack 12" at latch side - lacks 5' turning radius - grab bars improper - accessories mounted higher than 40" working height - does not have 29" clearance under sinks 10. Toilet rooms in locker room are not accessible to h'cap; - grab bars improper - accessories mounted higher than 40" working height - does not have 29" clearance under sinks 11. Building lacks elevator or ramp for access from upper to lower level - going outside for access not acceptable MJORUD ARCHITECTURE 12400 12th Avenue North, Minneapoi{s, MN 55441 - 4612 612 - 544,3871 October 3, 1991 Mr. Sy Knapp City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Architectural and Engineering Fee for Community Center Code Corrections as Identified by Clay Larson in his letter dated September 19, 1991, but excluding deferred accessibility issues, Dear Mr. Knapp, Mjorud Architecture appreciates the opportunity to assist you with the building code correction for or the Community u Center. er, Our ro os p p ed fee for this work as a stipulated sum is $ 2,200. The scope of work would include meeting with City staff to coordinate e work to meet the expectations of the City, The Architect would make corrections corrective and notations onto mylar copies of the original construction documents furnished by the City and prepare all other necessary drawings and specifications needed to described the work to a bidder or contractor. Formal bidding documents would not be prepared in favor of specifications and notations placed on the drawings in an abbreviated format, if this proposal is acceptable to the City of Brooklyn Center, we propose this letter as an amendment to the current Owner Architect Agreement, dated August 26, 1991. Proposed by: Accepted by: MJORUD ARCHITECTURE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Al Mjorud, AIA Gerald Splinter, City Manager AM :vlp CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date I0/07/9I Agenda Item Number 115 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irect of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM]WENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** . SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. • G \` Member introduced the following resolution and 0 moved its adoption: , RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 10/07/91 ) '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 ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- JOHN & GLORIA SAWCHAK 6812 SCOTT AVE N 332A NORMAN & EVELYN BERRY 5424 BRYANT AVE N 379 LYLE SCHMICKLE 6724 WILLOW LA N 380 DAN WHITTENBURG 6926 DALLAS RD 381 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date October 7.1991 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION # fff# ff#### fffffffffff### fffffffffff # #f # # # #f #fffffff #ffff #ffffffffffff # #Y # #f # #ff #Y # # #ff ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE FOR BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB AT LYNBROOK BOWL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE FOR BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB AT EARLE BROWN BOWL ff #f #( fffff :ff #( fff #( fff## ffffffffff # # # # # # # # # #ffffffff #f ## #fff # # # # # # # # # # # #f # # #ff ## #(fff DEPT. APPROVAL: d James Lin y, Chief of Police MANAGER'S RE /RECOMMENDATI No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached fff# #(fffff# :fff# fffff ## fffff # # # # #ffffffff #f# fff #ff ## fff #ffffffffffff # #f # #f # #ffffffffff SUM MLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached des ) The City of Brooklyn Center has received applications from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to renew their two charitable gambling licenses. The Lions are currently licensed to operate pull -tabs at locations within both the Lynbrook Bowl and Earle Brown Bowl. Both licenses will expire after the first of the year. Under the State of Minnesota's new rules, they will not consider any licenses unless they are accompanied by a resolution from the local governing body approving the issuance. One new rule; however makes these licenses effective for a two -year period where previously they had been for one -year. That means that upon issuance, these licenses would not come up for renewal until January of 1994. Since the problems experienced at the initial start-up of these two licenses, the police department has experienced no serious problems with either of these licenses. The Lions appear to have two well -run operations. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council approve both resolutions authorizing issuance of charitable gambling licenses for the Brooklyn Center Lions Club at locations within Lynbrook Bowl and Earle Brown Bowl. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE FOR BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB AT LYNBROOK BOWL WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club holds a Charitable Gambling License to operate pull -tabs at a location within Lynbrook Bowl; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has made application to renew their Charitable Gambling license; and WHEREAS, the club has operated this license for several years as a well -run operation with no serious problems to the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the application for renewal of the Charitable Gambling License for the Brooklyn Center Lions to operate at a location within Lynbrook Bowl is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE FOR BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB AT EARLE BROWN BOWL WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club holds a Charitable Gambling License to operate pull -tabs at a location within Earle Brown Bowl; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has made application to renew their Charitable Gambling license; and WHEREAS, the club has operated this license for several years as a well -run operation with no serious problems to the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the application for renewal of the Charitable Gambling License for the Brooklyn Center Lions to operate at a location within Lynbrook Bowl is hereby approved. i 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 / Agenda Rem Number %j H REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 91017 submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal DEPT. OVAL: Jem RONALD A. WARREN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: >.� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X The City Council on September 23, 1991 considered Planning Commission Application No. 91017 submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal. This application was a request for an appeal of a determination made by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The City Council reviewed this matter quite extensively and discussed as well the question of whether or not the City's current ordinance should be changed to permit the parking of certain vehicles in residential areas. The Council was not inclined to make any such changes and with respect to the application at hand, directed the staff to prepare a resolution denying Planning Commission Application No. 91017. RECOMMENDATION A resolution has been prepared for the Council's consideration which would deny Planning Commission Application No. 91017 submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal and is recommended for the Council's adoption. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO.91017 SUBMITTED BY DENNIS AND GLORIA CARDINAL WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 91017 was submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal seeking an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit; WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 regular meeting where testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report relating to this application and the submittal and points raised by the applicants and their representative; and WHEREAS, following deliberation of the matter the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that Application No. 91017 be denied on the grounds that the parking of a tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center considered said appeal at a duly called City Council meeting on September 23, 1991; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all of the materials submitted, the record of the Planning Commission's review of this matter, and information supplied and testimony presented by applicant's representative relating to said appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council has, furthermore, considered and deliberated a request made by the applicants and their representative to either amend the ordinance to make an exception that would allow tow trucks to be parked in residential areas or provide other relief such as determining the parking of a tow truck to be a legal nonconformity within the meaning of Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 e; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after full consideration and review of the above, makes the following findings and considerations: RESOLUTION NO. 1. The use of property for off street parking and loading purposes in residential areas in the City of Brooklyn Center is an accessory use of property, not a principal use of property, within the meaning of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The parking or storage of vehicles and equipment are not listed as uses, either permitted or special, in the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with permitted uses in the district. 4. The applicants have claimed that the parking of a tow truck should be considered a special use and, therefore, eligible for a special use permit under the ordinance. 5. Tow trucks responding promptly to accident scenes may be an important activity as indicated by the State Trooper affidavit submitted, but they do not have to be parked in residential areas for the public welfare. There are other available non- residential areas within the City for parking and storing such vehicles to adequately and quickly respond to accident scenes. 6. Parking or storing tow trucks in residential areas is incompatible with the permitted uses in residential areas. However, this incompatibility does not make the parking or storage of a tow truck in a residential area a "special use" eligible for a special use permit under the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The parking or storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas of the city is an activity, not a land use, and is regulated by Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 of the City's Nuisance Ordinance. 8. The parking or storage of a tow truck in a residential area such as 6544 France Avenue North is prohibited by Section 19 -103, subdivision 12. 9. Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 e allows otherwise prohibited vehicles or equipment to be parked on property which is zoned residential and the principal use is nonconforming within the meaning of Section 35 -111. This provision does not exempt the parking of a tow truck at 6544 France Avenue North as the principal use of that property has been residential at least since the 1950's when the home at that address was built. RESOLUTION NO. 10. The City Council adopted the restrictions and prohibitions regarding the parking or storing of certain vehicles in residential areas after much review, public hearing and deliberation. 11. The City Council believes that it is important to preserve and protect the residential character of its various neighborhoods and has, therefore, adopted the regulations contained in Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 as a means of controlling activity which they have determined unreasonably annoys, injuries or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of members of the public. 12. The City Council has not been presented with compelling reasons to amend its ordinances to allow the parking or storage of a tow truck in a residential area. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center based upon the above findings and considerations to deny the appeal under Planning Commission Application No. 91017 and to uphold the Director of Planning and Inspection's determination that the parking of a tow truck in a residential area is a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED based upon the above findings and considerations that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center finds no compelling reason to amend Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances or provide other relief sought by the applicants in this situation. 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 147 -9I Agcn& Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY - WRIGHT LINE MODEL P5650 CARD PUNCH DEPT. APPROVAL: - P—OdFL�t n,12 Patricia A. Page, Deputy City Clerk Qi MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The fuel dispensing system at the City garage has recently been upgraded and new equipment has P P been purchased. A portion of the old equipment went back to the manufacturer because they had salvage rights to it. The Wright Line Model P5650 Card Punch device is no longer useable with the new equipment and was not taken by the manufacturer. I recommend declaring this piece of equipment surplus and advertising the sale of the equipment. The approximate value of the equipment is $200. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution declaring surplus property. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY - WRIGHT LINE MODEL 5650 CARD PUNCH WHEREAS, the fuel dispensing system at the City garage has recently been upgraded; and WHEREAS, the Wright Line Model P5650 Card Punch device is no longer useable with the new equipment which was installed; and WHEREAS, the Wright Line Model 5650 Card Punch device is still in working condition and could be used by other municipalities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center the Wright Line Model 5650 Card Punch device is hereby declared surplus and authorization is hereby given to advertise the sale of said piece of equipment. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/7/91 . Agenda Item Number L� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - HOWE INC. 2ND ADDITION DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dir for of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Aes • PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION: On July 11, 1983, the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 83027, preliminary plat for HOWE INC. 2ND ADDITION. Approval of the preliminary plat was subject to the conditions outlined on the attached memorandum. As noted in the memo, all conditions for approval have been met. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION This plat is recommended for approval, as submitted by the applicant. • MEMORANDUM DATE: October 2, 1991 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public works FROM: Mark Maloney, City Engineer RE: HOWE INC. 2ND ADDITION Conditions adopted for the preliminary plat by the City Council, at its July 11, 1983 meeting were as follows: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. As you know, the history of this final plat application is extensive, and quite a number of people have been involved. In lieu of all of the details since 1983, I offer the following summary: ♦ It appears that the legal descriptions used in the final plat have been revised to account for the concerns raised in previous title opinions. ♦ It appears that the correct parties are identified as signatories. Upon review of the City files for this plat application, it appears that the concerns, suggestions and observations indicated in the most recent Final Plat Opinion (Ms. Corrine Heine, dated 6/8/90) have been considered. Accordingly, I recommend approval of the final plat - HOWE INC. 2ND ADDITION, as submitted by the applicant. Sincerely, � ��1 Mark J. Malo e City Engineer 0 dn'% L : A:VO41 ^r �i�LAtif . SRC: k'L }';V' C!''`:7Tk' yr .r,« rr ..••.. r I tf<. 1., F•r ! (. M �IOWE INC. ZNDADDITION RT D6c. NO. s C.R.DOC.NO. vl• < >,..,.l� /rr / 1 arm Ilw e.r*_IY u.. 1..«.1.....1... ,M _.� `( ".� K � `� 6_ .� Ilr Ir ,.ri . _ _ .� J u u 11 � .i' e.. rr. rN.l. w ..NI��.........w. A er •"'..! I {•r•r� /�..r Ivrr >i I►'3f'if "e. �A � . ' t :F � 1 4� '.. ..« �.+. ur._r re u..r• r.._rr r w fr,r_ N. Ir 11• rr rr. w••wr n rr a..•n r w r. -_ —. ✓r r...^ w r s «r i _w« !,r<.a.A., _ _ — ?04.70 — ,,„ �' t Nd1- ^', _ _ _ s C ?.C� —' mi =� . _ *- . J ,...- ...�... d•.�.1... �..• 1 1.. 1. w... I.�r.. o. f.... w... w ..._. w ;? i.�." :.'.��:.... ' tr r. - .r�i w 1 .r. w."+: r.'r - � �'1 '.t I• rf {y.nl . ff q.. -� •� n nit ,. n.. r• .r•I_ u. +•+rrlr u. rr. Iarr. a .w rr_,rr. �.r. Nwr_.. r..l r wllrr .rlr_.Irf w wf r r...,,..., Nrr w« •w.. � f;`( f wr' w , - `!�, ^ ,E4� E y. < r t � w.0 • r�. f _... w w. wrrnl_ J w rwlr IW r W .. Iwr .Ilr w w r rti r Irr r f_•N. Yr ep 11W,� - E' r '� �r1� C!'�'? �\�Wil)- ~ i�rrrw M1= .Iw r.0 r 1•rlw J �1^IY r..•. r..w a l 'r . • '• u M �'Iw�fww. 1. U� 1 a•rM n,.•1 ,Y' r ._f•.N ) � Y Y••wl J r • f.IN N•. Y W ►•N J <�^ I ' =� — ,•rr N .•a1_l.•1 • Mr•N Ir�J1w�rY1 Ilrw u ti«N U rnrM . rrrY IA' J (5= r "" �'� f � iy �'�, .� r, » w rrw••r r Ilr Y u 1, MM `l: Y W t lb. Awr „ +• �I l� �` iI',. r�N'f: �� iw i .'S /y1 ..»w I Nl + w air �'r.�n' NII� li,w�w wir�, Ir +.i I M . w �� NI• e. 1, p f ,y«.r4J f �'' � 1 "• ”' A m. �l i , IW N YN •wt l•. Yr 111 Owl wrw rNr1Y w.l M. rr. N Ir N W pIJ N .NW1rr �• M fi r (,�' � 8 �• + ,.0 < � !� 1, � � 2,i 3 O n., . -.. « I. • 1. �rn w.rw• nll_. .f r...l� ow.r.. �I. c..r ,Ir....• nll.r.l N.. t? }: { v 3� .f d� r... r. . fir, -rya .Iu...w wu u 1. ...M r•., wo.....«I. f r,.rwr,. >_ < IJ 1 1 �. . ... .s ». r w.r IM 1_w»w Ir.tJ . rr. �. w 1�'.r 1. N.i w.• • Cl I Y �1 , I ^` \ Q y -is r_•I w..r • Vrr rew l�llr M Iw 1. • n N r.wn+•rvlY N • Plw 1• W ^ : •i, I o ' � 3• .. ' \-c3. ei..liYl l.r le � � u L . I.. M I.w. r.. ..r...l, _r «. ..Y I..Y. 1 < .z { L � sw, p w 1�•• =ate ml »» � « I, 2 � '� r'` 1� � -��..� 1 u•vlrwl.. a."re n Y Ns'. w Nr I .o w r wr ... n. r e. .1 � I Sfi JS — �. f- I �r:� •�I" th b- r ar.lr Ilw su.wr..l r uw 1 a.crlw rlwr ., ew. .k � � Y• llw Ir r•IrwW _ •wW.s, a..w r Iwt ; ■•wl 1. 1)+ r. YN.WI rrws •rw•relr rw .rs IW r M L Yw 1. l: 'a I .hr� 1 , Q n,.. w. _ �.. -_... arW w rr N wrr,• w v r.w. a•.N +++. rrw w�•.w.. `^ i . 4 � � ' �'� �O/ , - 1 T � � rN o...N r<r.r W �. e..�•r. ; r.v._.... a....r ....w ..w. r r.w ' , • J Inf•. n Mlw w a_tirw• w 1 r • •r»wnJ wrw �+ � �- n f �. v .� ,-.� • .%« ,..� aa.,. � � � r ..... s�..w w lu. _ .... _ r Nw r ... r. ,r,tlr a,.. IM r.r,..l, w w 1 Ar•rr r... W • �, �.. �;':.I r �r._.w, .rl,r_Y� ,.• -:��Nw , _J Ir_ 1. Y ~1 �y • �� 1 3 � � � win +lro Ir.w�r.re � aTr�7.r Yr«. ��. f•r 1 � _ —, q an •. r.waln. «..Y.N .f z I w. I�N_w• ¢+.r. • w r _ .T4T. iTs IT H•q�< H.. r , ,'� / l 1 � `'�' T N r. t � � f'!. J .1 1 � Hrt t Ir..... +r.• .a NNw W f�rf •rwlr d W rUr I.r r lo. nc. se kofnsl ww w• Nw 1• '•may - ,. � � >� � 4r.r r•r•n� r •. dwlwr.rr �.__ ww w w.aw rt••wrr. w• •1 1,1 �r.f rr rJ Nwr .rw l vrr. w � �Iwr w S 1 �'', f mu n y r h'i "fo. � ^�.i„ e..'"� '`3 , l: � ,,.,, te r1..N ��+.s.r r<..... s � e.. J . Ir ` q r. � w.N.. �N•_.• M /nn` O�p /� ��� 7 ' � _ _•_y sr.lf, •1w w• (1n b+r.l N as Cnl J v.w11T d+a. r.Ar,r.. W a_r.1 wr• �...`w. W N« N •m �l nn Z2/ -- �' / SQL/ /f Mr Dmolrr iron mo<rummi Bror,nft Oown arf b<,f d a, ostumrd dolurn � ...,. ,rn•rti. re ~ • . �+,•v •rl �. n e�wy, • w• p.r «I_, +•w ti _+« rw •( rrr• bll•Mry ewrr lur• _sw� nrrw.wr •+ wlrr.imlY.•c,.N. rtllwr. w» N_'r rrwr wr �_ M 1. •r."•rr Iw rrr• rw Y �1rw. n•r r w.nvw •. r rrr ., Ir,w, awry» (fir, MFw. Irv. Y t r 4 1. Y_. 1, w r, I,IN r r_IY 1 r r • . 'wr�yw wrwr nllr r ar �� .wwn �IYw a . ,.w,r» ti,..,, w ,'� r .wr.ww.rw 1, r�r ....r.e, M r p • .w._f r nl. w ..a•e .w rr Mr... M •olnv s nnr, r..rrlr Wawa. Irrr�r. - -- Vv e»I_r« M Tlrlw » wr ti ww .w ,, I rr•rM rnl, • wN pir r w (t. >b wernr•r w•. Irir u wn Mnw al ti N 1. �� —_ tr p_• M n.+ • •••.. I.•, .,Iwrrr • • - -- '1 .— ., rr lr.. r•r_•w J nr1_ • • M Mry nw. •r r M Iw 1. Yra •. +•IM +_•, ♦Ilir .M Yrr.l rr Mr.rl. r.,.rw yrl. . rwvru, 4wIV r M1lltir til_IY • lorry rr„nr , _y« w tnwll ,Iwr►.w •rw•w J W M 1 ^+ rMwf • •rrry M � .I, • AINw• r• r ��� �� n . wnr 1 «^, M • w ilr+ M f v 1. NI f ..w. r w • • r "1:.` � I w•!.� ri-fr r ... .n,lw Nw v va) T. lw •minrf .N fllr Iw nl• flln rwl __ , M _ -�_ _ . b b p r 1 IN i r..r I _ r rl ...� , w wr r w... w.« I w ti .+.. i iti ..r _r• i.. I.. •. rw.l r... ��.. 1:( IN MT •....•na » W NN w_rr r rlla r r r_... Iw ,. Mrlw r .rr tir_.r ,. rrrlr IA Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 7, 1991: ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lioness 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. (1 n • � C�� Brooklyn Center Lions 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. �✓ C Sanitarian NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. Graco 6820 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. ()' Graco 6820 Shingle Ck. Pkwy, f� Sanitarian p,�L RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: David and Carolyn Wagtskjold 6845 Willow Lane N. Jim Stalberger /A1 Juhnke 3135 - 49th Ave. N. Nell Davis 3827 - 69th Ave. N. WCxJI/L2l✓� Director of Planning 4j< and Inspection SWIMMING POOL �Gittleman Management Corp. 7900 Xerxes Ave. S. n � •C} Beach Condominiums 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. _�✓ Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, Deqty Clerk