The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990 05-07 CCP Regular Session x CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 7, 1990 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of 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 from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Presentation a. Minnesota Water Ski Association 7. Continuation of Board of Equalization Meeting a. William Schutte, 35 119 -21 -11 -0009, 0010, 0007, 0008 b. Debbie Gilmore, 34- 119 -21 -11 -0056 C. K & K Sales, Inc., 10- 118 -21 -42 -0041 d. Gary Lyons, 35 119 -21 -11 -0006 e. Joslyn, 10- 118 -21 -23 -0004 8. Mayoral Appointment: *a. Human Rights and Resources Commission 9. Resolutions: a. Approving Purchase of Property from Minnesota Department of Transportation -This resolution accepts the offer from MNDOT for the sale of the house and property located at 6626 West River Road to the City. Purchase of this property is necessary to allow realignment of the West River Road connection to 66th Avenue. b. Accepting Proposals for Professional Services Relating to Acquisition of Right -of -Way for 69th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 C. Providing for the Negotiated Purchase of Real Property for Project No. 1990 -10 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 7, 1990 *d. Establishing Parking Restrictions on MSAP 109 - 125 -03, 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway *e. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Blacktop Roller - Approved in 1990 street maintenance budget. *f. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club - $2,000 designated for Entertainment in the Parks. *g. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club - $1,500 designated for fireworks display during Earle Brown Days. *h. Transferring Funds from the Community Development Block Grant Fund to the Economic Development Authority Fund 10. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land -This ordinance amendment describes the land the City Council rezoned from I -1 to C2 under Planning Commission Application No. 89003 on March 12, 1990. This item was offered for a first reading on April 9, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on April 18, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances Regarding Collection of Yard Waste -This item was offered for a first reading on April 9, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on April 18, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. 11. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 90010 submitted by Brooklyn United Methodist Church requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to make some additions to the Brooklyn United Methodist Church, to use the residence at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard for church ministries and to expand the parking lot north of the church -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 26, 1990, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 7, 1990 b. Planning Commission Application No. 90011 submitted by Brooklyn United Methodist Church requesting preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the existing Brooklyn United Methodist church site and three residential lots to the north being acquired by the church for expansion of the parking lot. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 26, 1990, meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 90009 submitted by Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate requesting variance approval to allow retail use of the Golds Gym building at 2920 County Road 10 with fewer parking stalls than required by ordinance. -This application was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its April 26, 1990, meeting. Howe ver, an ordinance � amendment � regarding the parking g retail P g formula was recommended for approval and is offered this evening for a first reading. 1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Ordinance Regarding the Retail Parking Formula 12. Public Hearing: (8 p.m.) a. Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252 and to Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North Note: A public hearing regarding these improvements was conducted on April 9, 1990. Following that hearing it was determined that the notices of the hearing incorrectly identified constitution hall in the community center instead of the council chambers in city hall as the location of the hearing, and that it inadequately described the properties proposed to be .assessed. Therefore, corrected notices of this reconvened hearing have been published in the City's official newspaper and corrected individual notices were sent to the owners of property affected by the proposed improvements. All comments received at the April 9 hearing will b g e considered at this reconvened hearing. Following this hearing, the City Council should then reconsider ordering these improvements. 1. Resolution Ordering Improvement Projects 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1990 -11 and 1990 -12, Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252; and Improvement Project 1989- 27, Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th is Avenues North. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- May 7, 1990 13. Discussion Items: a. Specifications for 1990 Sealcoating Program b. 1990 Initial Legislative Report C. Review of Planning Session *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER AND APPLICATION RESOURCES R HUMAN RIGHTS ( COMMISSION SION APPLCO� ] ION Name Address 31 r t ' t Street ,5 5 / ' - 3 0 Zip Code Telephone Home -544 _3// Work Occupation/ e ma/� e r — Years lived in Brooklyn Center I have read the Human Rights and Resources Commission Enabling Resolutions (Resolution Nos. 68 -44, 69 -35, 71 -211, 74 -68, and 87 -132), which defines the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission. Yes ✓ No Comments I understand the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance and participation and feel I have the time available to be an active participant. Yes ✓ No Comments Additional comments on my interest, experience, background, ideas, etc. L111111 10 17 t t r �J t f Signature Date Submit to: Mayor Dean Nyquist City of Brooklyn Center 630 Shingle Creek Parkway Brookl Cente MN 55430 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 5/07/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP., DIRECTOR OP'PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:a�` " "'% No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached- SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On November 13, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89 -217 which, in part, authorized the City Manager to negotiate with MNDOT for the purchase of • the house and property at 6626 West River Road. That property was purchased by MNDOT in conjunction with the construction of new T.H. 252. The house has been used as MNDOT's construction office for approximately 5 years, but is now vacant. The purpose of the City's proposed purchase of this property is to allow the realignment of the connection from West River Road to 66th Avenue. (See attached sketch). MNDOT has now completed its appraisal of this property and has submitted its offer (copy attached) to sell this property to the City for $80,000. City Assessor Mark Parish conducted an independent appraisal of this property (see copy attached) and essentially concurs with MNDOT's appraisal and offer. City Council Action Required A resolution is attached for consideration by the City Council. s Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, on November 13, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89 -217 wherein the City Manager was authorized and directed to negotiate with the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) for the purchase of the house and property located at 6626 West River Road; and WHEREAS, those negotiations have now been completed and MNDOT has agreed to sell the property to the City at a price of $80,000 and the City Assessor has conducted an independent appraisal in which he concludes that this is a reasonable price for this property; and WHEREAS, acquisition of this property is required to allow reconstruction of West River Road in accordance with the City's plans for Improvement Project 1990 -10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. the MNDOT offer to sell this property, legally described as follows, is hereby accepted: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Replat of Part of Block 1, Olsons Island View Terrace, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the north line of Lot 1, Block 1, said Replat of Part of Block 1 and its easterly extension; excepting therefrom the westerly 20 feet thereof. 2. the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to complete the purchase of said property in accordance with the terms of the MNDOT offer. 3. payment for the purchase of this property shall be made from the Municipal State Aid Fund, Restricted Fund Balance Account No. 2600. Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 0 6' NC(S E WALL -- T .H. 2 52 EXISTING ALIGNMENT �` i f BE 685 STA. 683 +60 - -- _ - - 57' L.T. / / A PROPOSED ALIGNMENT " _ ti • MNDOT HOUSE .. W O 'r`• 1---= MNDOT PROPERTY 101 { J WEST RIVER ROAD o"IESOT 0 11 0 n Minnesota Department of Transportation 3, O0 Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 MINNESOTA 19% �Q OF TRV 296 -1.133 April 23, 1990 Sy Knapp Directory of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55340 In reply refer to: 7300 S.P. 2748(252 = 110)903 Hennepin County Parcel 10 Conveyance to City Dear Mr. Knapp: I am pleased to inform you that your request for the excess acquired portion of the above referenced parcel, as shown in red on the attached map, has been approved and appraised by Mn /DOT. The value of said tract is $80,000.00. Upon receiving payment in the amount of $79,736.00 ($80,000.00 - deed tax of $264.00) the State will issue a quit claim deed to the City for public purpose using the enclosed legal description. The payment must be in the form of a cashier's check, certified check or money order made payable to the "Commissioner of Transportation - Trunk Highway Fund The sale of said tract will be contingent upon the approval and recommendations of the Board of Water and Soil Resources. This is to comply with M.S.S. 40.46 which was effective March 15, 1990. Please submit payment and any questions you have regarding this transaction to Marvin Martin, Mn /DOT Building, Room 511, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (phone 296 - 8647). Sin ely, R. J. Dinneen, Director Office of Right of Way and Surveys is Enclosures: Map (1) Legal Description (1) An Equal Opportunity Empl MEMORANDUM TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Mark Parish, City Assessor DATE: April 5, 1990 RE: MnDOT Property Appraisal 6626 West River Road CONCLUSION: Value Range Equal to $65,000 - $80,000 As you are aware, one of the first steps in determining the value of a property is to determine its potential uses, the highest and best use specifically. On the surface, this property looks like, and was previously used as, a residential dwelling. That type of property valuation is relatively straight forward. However, given the zoning of the site, R -5, the use of the structure as a single family residential dwelling is not permitted. Therefore, the appraisal analysis must look at the property and determine other possible legal uses and determine the return of each possible scenario. My analysis of the land value is summarized as follows: Lot size: approximately 28,500 s.f. Permitted Density, Townhouses 5 units @ $9,000 /unit _ $45,000 Indicated Value Permitted Density, Apartments 10 units @ $4,000 /unit _ $40,000 Indicated Value Limited Office Use 28,500 s.f. @ $2.00 - $2.50 /s.f. _ $57,000 - $71,250 Indicated Value Range These values represent the value of bare land, ready for development. When reviewing the contribution of the present structures, they contribute no additional value to the site as an apartment or townhouse property. It is estimated that the salvage value and cost of site work would be a wash. As an office use, the present structure could be utilized, although a significant cost would be incurred to prepare the property for this use. The cost would include items of deferred maintenance, interior changes to facilitate office use, and site work. It is estimated that these costs would total nearly $20,000. Once completed, the property would perform similar to the following pro forma analysis: Income: 1400 s.f. office @ $10 /s.f. _ $14000 1000 s.f. storage @ $3 /s.f. = 3000 Garage, 12 mos. @ $50 /month = 600 Gross Potential Annual Income 17600 Less Vacancy <1760> Less Collection Loss <880> Net Potential Annual Income 14960 Expenses: Management $ 750 Insurance 750 Utilities 3000 Repairs & Maintenance 1800 Reserves for Replacements 500 Total Annual Expenses 6800 Net Operating Income 8160 Capitalization Rate 10.5% Effective Tax Rate 3.3% Overall Rate 13.8% Indicated Value $8160 / .138 = 59,130, say $59,100 If, after repairs and renovations amounting to $20,000, the property is estimated to have a value of $59,100, the present value is only $39,100. As this value is less than that of the land alone, the present improvements contribute no value to the site. Again, I estimate that the salvage value of the two structures, 1400 s.f. house and 576 s.f. garage, is approximately equal to the cost of site work, well capping, and utility disconnection. If this were not the case, the difference would be additional value or negative value, depending on which item was greater. Although the zoning does not permit a single family residential use, an analysis was completed using the assumption that the land was rezoned - R 1 ermittin such decision p ch a use. The first deci g involves the use of the excess land area. If the P arcel was replatted and the eastern 120 feet was described as a second parcel, that P arcel would be buildable. It is estimated that this second parcel would contribute a net present value of $12,000 after consideration of utility, engineering, and legal costs. The dwelling and garage on the balance of the site are then assumed to be available for R -1 use. Based upon recent sales of comparable homes, the estimated present value of these structures and one -half the site would be in a range of $65,000 to $75,000. Added to the excess land, this yields a combined present value range of $77,000 to $87,000. Again, this estimate is based on an assumption of instant rezoning. If this use could not be quickly approved, the value would decrease dramatically. In conclusion, based upon the present zoning, I estimate the site has a market value in the range of $57,000 to $71,000. If a rezoning could be easily and quickly approved, the value would be expected to increase to between $77,000 to $87,000. Therefore, depending upon assumptions used, a reasonable range of value would be estimated to be between $65,000 and $80,000. If further documentation explanation, or analysis is requested, P Y q lease feel p free to contact me. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/07 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DREG I OR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Y es ) On April 23, 1990, the City Council approved a plan for acquisition of required right -of -way for 69th Avenue Improvement No. 1990 -10, and approved contracts for professional services relating to the acquisition of one home on a hardship basis. Established procedures under the Uniform Relocation and Real Properties Acquisition Policies require that: • the City hire a qualified appraiser to appraise the value of each parcel to be acquired. • an "appraisal review" be conducted to assure that the appraisal meets required standards. • the City establish a "just compensation" offer, the amount of which is no less than the reviewer's certificate of fair market value. • that negotiations for purchase of the properties be conducted in accordance with detailed procedures which include an offer from the City to reimburse the property owner for the costs (within established limits) of hiring an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property. • that a relocation assistance program be established or the purpose of establishing the relocation rights and benefits of persons displaced by the land acquisition process. During the past 6 weeks City staff has discussed this process at length with representatives from various agencies which regularly deal with property acquisition, and we have interviewed a number of private firms who provide the types of professional services required. Based on these discussions, we recommend that the City employ Evergreen Land Services Inc. of Brooklyn Center and Conworth, Inc. of Minneapolis to provide the following services: Evergreen Land Services, Inc. • conduct title searches and obtain abstracts as necessary to ascertain ownership interests on each property. • hire an appraiser, approved by the City, to conduct property appraisals. • hire a second appraiser approved by the City, to conduct appraisal reviews. • submit these reports to the City to obtain the City's just compensation offer. • conduct negotiations for purchase with the property owners, in coordination with Conworth, Inc. Conworth, Inc. • conduct relocation appraisals. • provide relocation counseling and assistance. • conduct relocation negotiations in coordination with Evergreen Land Services. Attached hereto are copies of the proposed contracts with these two firms. Because of the many uncertainties involved in this type of work, it is not • possible to establish a fixed price for either of these services. However both firms have included estimated costs for budgeting purposes, i.e.: Evergreen's estimate of total charges is $76,000 (not including "property management" services - i.e. charges for administration of lease -back agreements, etc); and Conworth's estimate of their total charges is $35,000 to $38,900. While these total costs are very substantial, we believe that their proposals are fair because: • both firms have a good deal of expertise and experience in dealing with this process. Accordingly, we believe that they will conduct their services in a cost - effective manner; • we believe that the hourly and daily rates which these firms propose to charge are quite reasonable; and • each of these firms has assured us that they are comfortable in working with the other firm. We believe that to be a very important factor because of the necessity to have them cooperate. It is noted that Conworth, Inc. estimates the total relocation benefits for this project to be in the range of $409,500 to $606,750. Based on a previous estimate by the City Assessor, the project cost estimates include $500,000 for this purpose. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager P Y g FROM: Brad Hoffman, EDA Coordinator DATE: May 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Purchase of Homes on the South Side of 69th Avenue North, West of France Avenue North The City Council requested the EDA to consider possibilities for the acquisition of five (5) homes west of France Avenue North on the south side of 69th Avenue North. The five (5) houses in question have a combined market value (assessor) of $310,300. If the EDA were to acquire these properties, we should anticipate a cost of approximately $380,000. The EDA has a cash reserve that could acquire these homes. In essence, the EDA would be acquiring the property and speculating on future redevelopment of the area. I would ro st ngly recommend against this approach. Brooklyn Center has some significant housing problems with very limited financial resources to address them. While some of these homes are on a tentative list for future acquisition, the overall priority would be very low in my opinion. The other approach that could be utilized would be to assemble the properties in a package for a pre- identified buyer. The terms and conditions of the sale to the buyer would have to be known and committed to before the EDA would start acquisition. I would like to discuss the concept in greater detail Monday. It might even be possible that the EDA could act in the capacity of putting the buyer and seller together. 96 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, on March 26, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -66, ordering the reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, implementation of that improvement in accordance with the approved plan requires the acquisition of certain properties as shown on the right -of -way plan for this project, as approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 90 -85 on April 23, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained proposals from Evergreen Land Services, Inc. and from Conworth, Inc. to provide professional services including appraisals, negotiations, and relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Properties Acquisition policies, as related to the above - described property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal for services submitted by Evergreen Land Services Inc. is hereby accepted and approved. The estimated fees for these services are $76,000. 2. The proposal for services submitted by Conworth, Inc. is hereby accepted and approved. The estimated fees for these services are $35,000 to $38,900. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contracts with both firms on the basis of their proposals. 4. All costs for these services shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Expendable Fund Balance Account No. 2600. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the followin g g voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i ELS Project No. 9068 Revised 3 -90 CONTRACT This CONTRACT is made this 26th day of April 19 90 between The City of Brooklyn Center _ ( "Client ") having an office at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway and Evergreen Real Estate and Investment, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, doing business as Evergreen Land Services Company ( "Professional Consultant ") having an office at 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite 415, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430. The parties agree as follows: 1. The Professional Consultant shall complete all the services specified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The services shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards and in accordance with such requirements or restrictions as may be lawfully imposed by governmental authority. The work shall be commenced on or before April 23, 1990 and the Professional Consultant shall complete all necessary contract work and services, drawings and specifications no later than April 1, 1992 2. The Professional Consultant shall (a) furnish all labor and equipment and provide all the material required to complete the services, (b) complete all work with promptness and diligence to the satisfaction of Client, and (c) have full control and direction over the mode and manner of performing the services covered by this Contract. Professional Consultant shall take all precautions for the proper and safe performance thereof. 3. Client shall pay Professional Consultant for the performance of this Contract in accordance with the rate schedule contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Professional Consultant shall bill the client on the first and the fifteenth day of each month during the progress of the work for amounts due hereunder. Client agrees to remit payment to Professional Consultant within thirty days after receipt of each such statement submitted by Professional Consultant. Final payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance by Client of all the work called for hereunder. Client may require Professional Consultant to furnish evidence to Client showing that all claims for labor, material and other obligations arising hereunder are proper. -1- 4. Client's Representative is S Knapp p p_ or other persons designated in writing by him or by Client. The Client Representative shall exercise no supervision over Professional Consultant's employees but shall be available to Professional Consultant for consultation or advice during normal working hours. 5. The services covered by this Contract shall commence following the execution hereof and upon notification from Client to Professional Consultant. This Contract shall continue until final completion of and acceptance by Client of the work performed by Professional Consultant unless sooner terminated by either party upon written notice to the other. Either party may terminate this contract upon fifteen days' written notice to the other. In the event of any such termination, Professional Consultant shall be paid for work performed through the date of termination. 6. Records of Professional Consultant's direct labor costs and reimbursable expenses pertaining to the services covered by this Contract shall be kept on a generally acceptable accounting basis and shall be available to Client or its authorized representative during normal business hours. 7. Title to all designs, studies, plans, specifications and other data related to Client's locations, structures and projects shall, after payment to Professional Consultant as provided for in Exhibit B, be in Client and the designs, studies, plans, specifications and other data shall be delivered to Client unless Professional Consultant is requested in writing to do otherwise. 8. Professional Consultant assumes full responsibility for all injuries to, or death of any persons and for damages to property, including property and services of Client. Professional Consultant shall indemnify and save Client harmless from all claims, losses, or suits for injuries, death or damage and from all liens, losses, expenses or claims of any sort which may arise out of or result from Professional Consultant's performance of this Contract. The limits of the Professional Consultants liability for this contract are as shown on the attached Exhibit C. 9. Professional Consultant shall take out and maintain, at its own expense, such public liability, automotive, and Workman's Compensation Insurance as will adequately protect Professional Consultant and Client from claims under applicable workmen's compensation acts and from any other claims for damages for personal injury, including death, or damage to property which may arise or result from Professional Consultant's performance under this Contract, whether the performance be by Professional Consultant or by a subcontractor or by any one directly or indirectly employed by either of them. The specific insurance coverages to be provided are as shown on the attached Exhibit C. -2- 10. Professional Consultant shall not assign its rights or delegate its obligations under this Contract in whole or in part, or any work or money payable hereunder, nor shall Professional Consultant subcontract any part of the work without the written consent of Client. 11. Professional Consultant shall comply at its expense, with the provisions of all applicable state and municipal requirements and with all state and federal laws applicable to Professional Consultant as an employer of labor or otherwise, including, but not limited to, all safety or health standards issued under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 or under any state or local act affecting safety and health. Professional Consultant shall further comply with all rules and regulations and licensing requirements pertaining to its professional status and that of its employees, subcontractors and others employed to render the services hereunder. 12. Any specifications, drawings, sketches, models, samples, data, computer programs or documentation or other technical or business information ( "information ") furnished or diclosed to Professional Consultant hereunder shall be deemed the property of and, when in tangible form, shall be returned to Client upon request. Unless such information was previously known to Professional Consultant free of any obligation to keep it confidential, or has been or is subsequently made public by Client or a third party, it shall be held in confidence by Professional Consultant, shall be used only upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon in writing. 13. Client's designated representative or his delegate for the work hereunder shall communicate to Professional Consultant the Client's requirements and requests in reference to the work hereunder and shall review such work; Client's representative is shown below. Professional Consultant's designated representative for receiving such communications and requests is shown below. 14. This Contract covers the 69th Avenue improvement project. Client Professional Consultant City of Brooklyn Center John J. Ripsin Jr., President 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Evergreen Land Services Company Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Suite #415 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Client and Professional Consultant have executed this Contract, in duplicate, as of the day and year first above written. By Client Its Mayor Date B Its City Manager Evergreen Real Estate and Investment, Inc. Date B Its -4- i EXHIBIT "A" The work to be performed by Evergreen Land Services Company or their subcontractors are as follows: 1. Preliminary title search. 2. Subcontract for appraisals 3. Subcontract for review appraisals 4. Preparation of options 5. Land owner negotiations 6. All related typing and processing related to our work. Other work requested by the City, such as management of leases and other property management functions, shall be negotiated at the time of request. The rates listed on Exhibit "B" as just daily rates, will be billed on quarter day basis. The preliminary budget estimate for above services is $76,000.00. This is based on 22 residential and 2 commercial properties. 1, EXHIBIT "B" Right -of -Way Services Right -of -Way Agent I (0 -3 years experience) $190.00 per day Right -of -Way Agent II (3 years or more experience) 210.00 per day Right -of -Way Agent /Supervisor 225.00 per day (5 years or more experience) 15.00 per day* 2 -Wheel drive auto (R /W agent cars) Survey Services 2 Man survey crew (crew chief and rodman) 325.00 per day 3 Man survey crew 475.00 per day (crew chief, instrument man and rodman) Extra labor - each man 160.00 per day 2 -Wheel drive survey truck 20.00 per day* 4 -Wheel drive survey truck 25.00 per day* EDM (electronic distance measurement) equipment 15.00 per day *Vehicle rate does not include mileage Legal Services Attorney 90.00 per hour Drafting Draftperson $17.50 per hr. .140.00 per day Typist, Clerical $15.00 per hr. 120.00 per day Expenses For Payroll additives, insurance costs, etc.add 22% to services listed above. For Miscellaneous costs: Long distance phone charges, maps, copies of documents, expendable material, recording fees, or other costs required to complete projects. (A receipt of purchase must accompany all such charges) and subcontract work, add 20% to actual cost. Per diem allowance while out of seven county metro area 50.00 per day Vehicle mileage allowance .25 per mile >: GERTIFI -ATE OF IN$URANE :SR O lOiq ISSUE DATE . :::: >::;:;:;::: :.:.:.:. 02/22/90 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOTAM END, GLENNMARK AGENCY EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BYTHE POLICIES BELOW 551 CITY WEST PARKWAY COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE DEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 COMPANY A CODE SUB -CODE LETTER TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. COMPANY B INSURED LETTER EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES COMPANY C COMPANY LETTER 6200 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY COMPANY D SUITE 415 LETTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 COMPANY E LETTER COVIERAGES . ... :. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BYTHE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS TR DATE (MM /DD/YY DATE (MM /DD/YY • GENERAL LIABILITY 680481G9976COF 02/02/90 02/02/91 GENERALAGGREGATE $ 2,00 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILIT' PRODUCTS- COMP /OPSAGGR S 2,00 CLAIMS MAD U1 OCCUR. PERSONAL &ADVERTISING INJURY $ 1,000 OWNER'S &CONTRACTOR'S PROT. EACH OCCURRENCE S 1,000 FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) $ 50 MEDICAL EXPENSE(Anyone person $ 5 • AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 660298J87061ND 02/02/90 02/02/91 SINGLE BINED $ X ANYAUTO LMIT 500 ALLOWNEDAUTOS BODILY INJURY $ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) X HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ X NON -OWNED AUTOS (Peracc) GARAGE LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE $ EXCESS LIABILITY SFCUP481G373890 02/02/90 02/02/91 :i' EACH R AGGREGATE Y I b0 0 °8 $ 1,000 OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM UB4 T;:;;: 82 2 STATUTORY G 6690 02/02/91 3 02 02 90 WORKER'S COMPENSATION / / .... ............................... AND S 500 (EACH ACCIDENT) EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY $ 500 ( DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT) $ 500 (DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYE OTH. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS /VEHICLES /RESTRICTIONS /SPECIAL ITEMS "LIMITS SHOWN ARE THOSE IN EFFECT AS OF POLICY INCEPTION" . EATI>"ICATE HOLC?EH C.A.NCELLATION .............. ................:::::.:........ ..:.. ....:......::...::.:::.: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE Mr. Sy Knapp EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO City Administrator MAI DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TOTHE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE City of Brooklyn Center LEFT, BUT FAILURETO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ` i "Y I............ ::,... .....:: ,::::.::::..;:::::..; :.:.::.:. :....:;::;. :...:...::. r :.:tr;lc y :.: f SUR .. 1 " CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" and Conworth, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the Contractor proposes to acquire certain property and desires that the Consultant furnish the Contractor certain services with respect to such property including and inclusive of the services described in Article A of this Contract and the Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such services and will provide such services; and WHEREAS, the services to be provided under this Contract are necessary to achieve the purposes of the 69th Avenue Improvement Project #1990 -10, the Uniform Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policies Act of 1970 as amended and of the implementing regulations applicable thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Contractor and the Consultant, for the consideration and under the conditions hereinafter set forth, do agree as follows: A. Services 1. Residential Relocation Services Implementing the Project: a. The Consultant will distribute an information booklet on residential relocation assistance and all appropriate forms and data to each resident expected to be displaced. At this time the Consultant will: 1) Obtain a signed receipt for the informational booklet provided by the Consultant in accordance with applicable regulations. 2) Explain the residential relocation program and the resident's responsibilities to receive benefits. 3) Explain how to receive various kinds of assistance in finding replacement housing. 4) Survey the resident's relocation needs. 1 b. Upon the Contractor's initiation of negotiations for the project site, the Consultant will: 1) Analyze existing data to determine eligibility of the resident's relocation expenses for compensation. 2) Assist the resident in determining the most advantageous payment alternatives to claim and provide further instructions on how to proceed. C. Moving Expense Claims. 1) Advise the resident of the two types of payment for moving expenses. 2) Review the fixed moving schedule and advise the resident of the benefits under the fixed payment move costs option. 3) If choosing the actual move costs option, advise the resident on procedure to obtain required bids. 4) Assist the resident when necessary in preparing moving specifications. 5) Act when appropriate as agent in regard to accepting bids. 6) Analyze the bids to determine their reasonableness. 7) Notify the resident of the low acceptable bids. 8) When appropriate inspect the move of personal property while in progress. 9) Assist the resident in assembling all invoices, paid receipts, and other documentation necessary to substantiate the relocation claim. 10) When necessary analyze billings to determine their reasonableness. 11) Assemble the appropriate claim forms and documentation for signature and submission to the Contractor for approval. 2 d. Replacement Housing Payment. ayment. 1) Determine eligibility of the resident to receive this relocation payment. 2) Survey the housing market and prepare a comparable housing analysis to determine the limit on amount of payment. 3) Analyze the replacement housing to determine its eligibility of payment. 4) Assemble the appropriate claim forms and documentation for signature and submission for approval. e. Other. 1) The Consultant shall prepare, at the Contractor's request, the required and proper formats to be used by the Contractor in notifying occupant being displaced about their relocation eligibility and benefits to which they may be entitled. The Consultant will also, upon the Contractor's request, assist the Contractor in the preparation of the required notices to vacate for delivery to the residents. 2) The Consultant shall search for replacement sites for the residents being displaced and refer suitable, comparable housing found to each resident. The Consultant shall expend appropriate and necessary time searching for such referrals, documenting all time expended. The Consultant does not warrant that suitable referrals will be found. f. Recommendations. The Consultant will transmit to the Contractor the relocation claim(s) for its action. Recommendations will include the amount of payment to be made and any special considerations. Recommendations will be made in a detailed written format satisfying required regulations. g. In completing this Contract, the Consultant does not assume the responsibility for: 1) Preparation of status reports. 3 2) Accounting and recordkeeping (except as related to the specific claim). 3) Arrangement of real estate closings on replacement housing. 4) Payment for replacement housing appraisals and moving cost estimates and /or bids. 5) Work associated with a relocation grievance. 2. Business Relocation Services Implementing the Project a. The Consultant will distribute an informational booklet on business relocation assistance and all appropriate forms and data to each business expected to be displaced. At this time the Consultant will: 1) Obtain a signed receipt for the informational statement provided by the Consultant in accordance with applicable regulations. 2) Explain the business relocation program and the business's responsibilities to receive benefits. 3) Explain how to receive various kinds of assistance in finding new locations. 4) Survey the business's relocation needs. b. Upon the Contractor's initiation of negotiations for the project site, the Consultant will: 1) Analyze the existing data to determine the appropriate documentation required and determine the eligibility of the business's relocation expenses for compensation. 2) Check the personal property to verify that each item on the inventory is personal property and eligible for relocation. 3) Assist the business in determining the actual amount of moving expenses. c. Moving Expense Claims. 1) Assist the business in preparing specifications for work generally eligible for compensation. 2) Advise when necessary on procedure to obtain required bids. 4 3) Act when appropriate as agent in regard to accepting bids. 4) Analyze the bids to determine their reasonableness. 5) Notify the business of the low acceptable bid. 6) When appropriate inspect the move of personal property while in progress. 7) Assist the business in assembling all invoices, paid receipts, and other documentation necessary to substantiate its relocation claim. 8) When necessary analyze billings to determine their reasonableness. 9) Assemble the appropriate claim form and documentation for signature and submission for approval. d. Other. 1) The Consultant shall prepare, at the Contractor's request, the required and proper formats to be used by the Contractor in notifying occupant being displaced about their relocation eligibility and benefits to which they may be entitled. The Consultant will also, upon the Contractor's request, assist the Contractor in the preparation of the required notices to vacate for delivery to the residents. 2) The Consultant shall search for replacement sites for the businesses being displaced and refer available suitable sites found to each business. The Consultant shall expend appropriate and necessary time searching for such referrals, documenting all time expended. The Consultant does not warrant that suitable referrals will be found. e. Recommendations. The Consultant will transmit to the Contractor the relocation claim(s) for its action. Recommendations will include the amount of payment to be made and any special considerations. 5 i f. In completing this Contract, the Consultant does not assume the responsibility for: l) Preparation of status reports. 2) Accounting and recordkeeping (except as related to the specific claim). 3) Payment for direct loss appraisals, property analyses, and moving cost estimates and /or bids. 4) Work associated with a relocation grievance. B. Data to be Furnished by Contractor. The Contractor does hereby agree to furnish to the Consultant any such and all data, documents, studies, surveys, reports, or other materials and services mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the Consultant as being relevant to this effort. All such data, documents, studies, surveys, reports and other materials and services shall be provided to the Consultant in a timely manner in light of the purpose of this Contract. C. Compensation. The Contractor agrees to make monthly payment to the Consultant in the amount of $55.00 per hour, portal to portal, for each and every hour expended. All office overhead, secretarial services, and other supportive services shall be included within such hourly charge. We estimate that the total cost for the described relocation services may range from $33,700.00 to $37,500.00. D. Method of Payment. Monthly requisitions will be made subject to receipt of an invoice from the Consultant specifying the time and subject 7 matter for which it has performed the work under this Contract, and that it is entitled to receive the amount requisitioned under the terms of the Contract. The Contractor will make payment on such invoices within 35 days from submission; provided, however, that payment shall not be made for any incomplete, inaccurate, or defective work until same is remedied by Consultant without additional cost to the Contractor. 6 E. Scope of Work. 22 Residential Owner /Occupants 3 Businesses 1 Residential Tenant 3 Rental Realty Owners F. Court Preparation. It is understood and agreed that the amount of compensation stated above does not include necessary court preparation and testimony, and that in the event the testimony of the Consultant is required in any legal proceeding in connection with the relocation of occupants for the project. The Consultant agrees to bring its file up -to -date, to make the necessary preparations for testimony, and to appear as a witness on behalf of the Contractor on the dates required, and further agrees that the fair and reasonable compensation for its services shall be at the rate of $220.00 per half day, plus necessary and reasonable travel expenses. Any part of a day less than four hours expended by the Consultant shall constitute a half day for the purpose of this section of this Contract. G. Contract Period. The Consultant shall commence performance of this Contract upon execution of this Contract, after the release of the project by the Contractor, and shall complete performance of this Contract no later than sixty (60) days after the last occupant of real property listed in Section E above has filed their final relocation claim. H. Interest of Certain Federal Officials. No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States, and no other Federal Official, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Contract or to any benefit to arise herefrom. I. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or persons, other than a bonafide employee or technical subcontractor working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company, or person other than a bonafide employee or technical subcontractor working solely for the Consultant any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting 7 from the award or making of the Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Contractor shall have the right to annul this Contract without liability. J. Changes in Contract. The Contractor or the Consultant may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of the services to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Consultant's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the Contractor and the Consultant shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Contract. K. Termination of Contract. The Contractor or the Consultant may terminate this Contract or renegotiate this Contract upon thirty (30) days written notice of such. In the event of termination, all property and finished or unfinished documents data studies, and reports P purchased or re ared b P P y the Consultant under this Contract shall be disposed of according to Contractor directives and the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for any unreimbursed expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in satisfactory performance of this Contract. L. Extent of Agreement. This Contract represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Consultant and the Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Contract may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Consultant and Contractor. M. Personnel. 1. The Consultant represents that it has or will secure all personnel required in performing the services under this Contract as provided above. 2. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by the Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized under State and local law to perform such services. N. Non - Discrimination. The Consultant will not discriminate against any employee, or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, disability, status 8 in regard to public assistance, or age. The Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, disability, status in regard to public assistance, or age. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Contractor setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. In addition, the Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Consultant, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, disability, status in regard to public assistance, or age. O. Interest of Members of Contractor. No member of the governing body of the locality in which the project is situated, and no other officer, employee, or agent of the Contractor who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the carrying out of services to which this Contract pertains, shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. P. Interest of Consultant. The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire throughout the duration of this Contract any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Contract. The Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Contract no person having such an interest shall be employed. Q. Workmen's Compensation. The Consultant, at its expense, shall provide Workmen's Compensation insurance coverage for all of its employees involved in the performance of this Contract. R. Copyright. If this Contract results in any book or other copyrightable material, the Consultant is free to copyright the work, but 9 the Contractor will have the right of royalty free, non - exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish or otherwise use the work for government purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the Consultant have executed this Contract on or as of the date above written. By: �CtiU � t, / /��L%'�, , i L' Attest: cqi1blyde Wentworth, President Conworth, Inc. 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, Ste. #200 Minneapolis, 5416 ,r By- G�` ' ' G /r/' Attest: oh Conno s, Vice President `S Conworth, 4nc. 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, Ste. #200 Minneapolis, MN 55416 By: Attest: Dean Nyquist Mayor City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 By: Attest: Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 10 ., C ONWQR'TH, INC. 4725 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612) 929 -0044 May 2, 1990 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Subject: 69th Avenue Improvement Project, #1990 -10 Relocation Services Dear Mr. Knapp: I appreciated meeting you yesterday regarding the above project. Enclosed please find two contracts for the proposed work along 69th Avenue North, which we discussed at the meeting. The first one is a contract to provide relocation services for Phillip E. and Robin Wilcon, 3706 69th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429. The second contract is for the remaining 22 residential properties and 3 commercial establishments. The following is an estimate of the workload. From driving the site and looking through the reverse directory, it appears that there are 3 businesses, Saba Flowers, Albert Electronics, and Tires Plus. There are 23 residential properties. After deducting for the Wilson's, we are estimating that there will be 22 for owner /occupants and 1 tenant based on information found in the reverse directory. We are also estimating that there will be 3 rental realty claims. Basically these are claims in which absentee owners may be reimbursed for the cost of moving any personal property they provide at the rental property. This could be for such things as moving the stove and refrigerator, or minor items such as shelving, in the commercial properties. The claims can only be for the actual cost of moving these items, and in some cases an owner can be paid searching costs incurred in looking for a replacement site. Based on the above workload, we are estimating the cost of our services to be in the range of $35,000.00 - $38,900.00. Again, I'd like to mention that our hourly rate is $55.00. We bill by the quarter hour, and only for the services we provide. The actual cost may be less than the range, but for planning purposes and to be on the safe side, we recommend $35,000.00 - $38,900.00. Redevelopment Acquisition1Re1ocation Mr. Sy Knapp May 1, 1990 Page 2 The estimated cost of relocation payments to the people and businesses that have to move is again in a range. We have to do this because we have not had an opportunity to personally contact them to do a detailed study. We are estimating the range to be $409,500.00 - $606,750.00. The actual cost will be within this range. The $606,750.00 is a worst case scenario maximum. It would be very unlikely that your costs would run this high, but this will give you an idea of the upper limit. I believe this will cover all the things that we discussed at the meeting, and we will FAX it to you and follow up with the original in the mail. Again, thank you for the opportunity of working on this project, and if there are any other questions or concerns, please give me a call. Thank you. Sincer -- ohn Co ors Owner /Consultant sl Enclosures CONWORTH, INC. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/07/90 Agenda Item Number 9 e REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE NEGOTIATED PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECGtOR OF C WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Under federal and state regulations relating to the acquisition of properties and the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act, the City is required to follow established procedures in offering "just compensation" to the owners of properties to be acquired. So as to comply with those procedures and establish a process for final approval of all purchases by the City Council, City Attorney LeFevere has prepared the attached resolution for consideration by the City Council. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE NEGOTIATED PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -66 adopted on March 26, 1990, the City Council ordered the reconstruction of 69th Avenue between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement No. 1990 -10 (the Improvement); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -84 adopted on April 23, 1990, the City Council approved a right -of -way plan depicting properties to be acquired for the improvement (the Acquisition Properties); and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to provide a procedure for acquiring the Acquisition Properties by negotiated purchase when possible; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed acquisition of the Acquisition Properties and has determined that it is in compliance with the City's comprehensive land use plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 0 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to commence negotiations with the owners of the Acquisition Properties. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to offer to the owners of the Acquisition Properties for the purchase thereof, the amount determined by appraisal and review appraisal (the Appraised Value) in accordance with the procedure set Forth in the Federal Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act, and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto (the Relocation Act). Any such purchase agreement executed by the City Manager shall contain the provision that it is subject to approval and ratification by the City Council. 3. In cases in which the owners of Acquisition Properties do not agree to the sale of such properties for the Appraised Value, the City Manager shall attempt to negotiate with such owners a purchase agreement acceptable to the landowner and secure the execution of such purchase agreement by the owner, which purchase agreement shall be submitted for approval to the City Council. 4. Claims for relocation benefits required by the Relocation Act duly submitted and in accordance with the requirements of the Relocation Act may be approved by the City Manager and paid in accordance with the City Purchasing Policy adopted by City Council Resolution No. 83 -172. 5. The City Council hereby dispenses with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356, Subd. 2. RESOLUTION NO. i s Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/07/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MSAP 109 - 125 -03, 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KOAPP D RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: J_ XV4 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: su lement I ( pp a sheets attached Explanation • At the regular meeting on April 23, 1990, the City Council adopted a resolution which approved the right -of -way plan for 69th Avenue North and ordered the submission of such to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of State Aid. State Aid officials have since notified City staff that the right - of -way plan for this project will not be approved until the City of Brooklyn Center adopts a "no parking" resolution for the roadway proposed for reconstruction. Therefore, to expedite the property acquisition process for the 69th Avenue North reconstruction project, staff strongly recommends adoption of the attached resolution City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MSAP 109 - 125 -03, 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, the City has planned the improvements of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, the City will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improvements on this street; and WHEREAS, these improvements will not provide adequate width for parking on either side of this street. State Aid approval of the proposed construction and right -of -way plans is conditioned upon parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that upon completion of MSAP 109 - 125 -03 the parking of motor vehicles is hereby prohibited on both sides of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway at all times. The Department of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to install signs posting this prohibition. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/7/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Blacktop Roller *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Administrative Aide e Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached An appropriation was approved in the street maintenance budget for a blacktop roller. Two quotations have been submitted for this piece of equipment. • 1 recommend acceptance of the quote from Ruffridge Johnson in the amount of $5,455. • 9� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) BLACKTOP ROLLER WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1990 budget for the purchase of one (1) blacktop roller; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: COMPANY QUOTE TRADE -IN Ruffridge Johnson $7,115 $1,660 Aspen Equipment Co. 6,690 1,200 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) blacktop roller from Ruffridge Johnson in the amount of $5,455 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon.said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i of Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB ----------------------------------- WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the City a gift of two thousand dollars ($2,000) and has designated that it be used for "Entertainment In The Parks "; and - WHEREAS the City d commends th e Council is appreciative of the gift an co men s Y pP 9 Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $2,000 be appropriated to the General Recreation Professional Services, Entertainment In The Parks, Budget to be used to provide entertainment in the parks. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 9� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB ----------------------------------- WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the City a gift of one thousand five hunddred dollars ($1,500) and has designated that it be used for a fireworks display during "Earle Brown Days "; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $1,500 be appropriated to the General Recreation Professional Services, Entertainment In The Parks, Budget to be used for a fireworks display during "Earle Brown Days ". Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda Item Number 9y REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (DESCDBG) ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUND DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached There exists in the Community Development Block Grant Fund a fund balance of $14,682.23 as of December 31, 1989. In theory, this fund should always have a zero balance. All of its revenues are reimbursements for expenditures made by the E.D.A. Fund and should immediately be transferred over there. Balances in the C.D.B.G. got started in 1984 and 1985 when some revenues weren't immediately transferred out and so interest was earned on them. Since then, interest has been earned on the interest each year, until it accumulated to this balance. Since C.D.B.G. funds are reimbursed to us after we have made an eligible expenditure, this has to be interest earned on City funds, not federal dollars. As such, there is no obligation that the money be spent as federal dollars would. It can be transferred to any fund and spent as any other City funds would. We recommend that it be transferred to the E.D.A. Fund since that fund would have received the interest had the proper transfer been made in the first place. 1� (RESCDBG) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUND ----------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make transfers between all funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with the provisions of related covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or State Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Fund (CDBG) was established to receive grant money and transfer it to other funds as reimbursement for qualified expenditures already made; and WHEREAS, there now exists accumulated cash surpluses which are the result of interest earnings on some grant reimbursements which were temporarily left in the CDBG Fund; and WHEREAS, these grants should have been immediately transferred to the Economic Development Authority which would then have received the interest income; and WHEREAS, the Fund Balance in the CDBG Fund as of December 31, 1989 was $14,682.23; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. To transfer the amount of $14,682.23 from the CDBG Fund to the Economic Development Authority Fund. 2. To transfer the 1990 interest earnings of the CDBG Fund to the Economic Development Authority Fund when they have been determined at year end. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -7 -90 Agenda Item Number / OQi REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land DEPARTMENT A L: Signature - title Director of P1 anni ng and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Co ments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X On March 12, 1990 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 89003 which was a City initiated proposal to rezone a number of parcels of land located both north and south of the freeway from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce). The final step in any rezoning approval is a housekeeping type ordinance amendment that describes in the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 35) the rezoned land under its newly designated zoning district. Such an ordinance amendment was offered to the City Council for first reading on April 9, 1990 and is scheduled for public hearing at the May 7, 1990 City Council meeting. Attached for the City Council's review is a copy of the April 9, 1990 Request for Council Consideration form relating to this matter. There is a slight deviation from the original rezoning proposal considered under Application No. 89003 in that not all of the land south of the freeway is recommended for rezoning to C2. As has been previously noted, we will be bringing to the Planning Commission's consideration a proposal to rezone to C1A the land in the area south of the freeway which has been proposed, or is now being used, for high -rise office development. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment describing the land to be rezoned under Planning Commission Application No. 89003. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER counca Meeting Date 4 -9 -90 Agenda Item Number ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ...ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land * rsrs t+ r* ttrat :tt� * * # tttst�tt,rt *+tit t,t�tt *, Firs, t* �r�tirs� *� :w,t *strs # : *�,tirss *ittttsts DEPARTMENT APP VAL.• Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On March 12, 1990 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 89003 which was a City- initiated proposal to rezone a number of parcels of land located both north and south of the freeway from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce). The properties under consideration included the Holiday Inn, then La Casita restaurant, the Budgetel and Econolodge hotels, the Earle Brown Bowl, Hardees restaurant as well as the remaining vacant land located south of Freeway Boulevard between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue on the north side of the freeway. On the south side of the freeway, the rezoning included the Brookdale Corporate Center I, II and III sites, the Earle Brown Heritage Center, the Earle Brown Office Tower /Minnesota School of Business building site, and the vacant property proposed for Phase IV of the Brookdale Corporate Center and the vacant land contemplated for a second office tower located north of, and attached to, the Earle .Brown Office Tower /Minnesota School of Business building The final step in any rezoning approval is a housekeeping type of ordinance amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 35) that describes the rezoned land under its newly designated zoning district. Such an ordinance amendment is offered to the City Council for first reading. A slight deviation from the rezoning approval considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89003 is being requested, however. That would be to not rezone from I -1 to C2 at this time the land south of the freeway with the exception of the Earle Brown Heritage Center property. -1- SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED Discussion amongst the staff, since the Council consideration of the rezoning, has raised the question of the desirability of a C2 zoning designation for land already being used and proposed for future development as high -rise (above three stories) office building uses. This type of use is permitted in the C2 zoning district as well as the CIA zoning district. However, the C2 zoning designation would also allow as permitted uses, a number of uses such as a strip shopping center and other retail and general commerce uses, that we do not believe would be appropriate on the vacant land in this area. The lands have, for a number of years, been projected for only service /office development of a high -rise nature. A C2 designation might become a problem in the future. This aspect of the rezoning was only considered a problem with the realization that the office development may not be undertaken as soon as we believed and a subsequent owner of the land might try to push through an undesirable, but nevertheless permitted, C2 type use. We still recommend the rezoning of the Earle Brown Heritage Center site to C2, for this is an appropriate zoning designation for the uses that will be conducted on that property. We anticipate the need to initiate another rezoning to CIA of the land in this area which has been proposed, or is now being used, for high -rise office development. Such a proposal will require Planning Commission review and a public hearing and will be pursued by the staff in the immediate future. Recommendation We recommend approval of the ordinance describing the property (absent the office property) approved for a C2 zoning classification under Planning Commission Application No. 89003. -2- Q REZONING = _ -- __ - - -- - -- -- -_ _- _ =_ =__s_ __ -___ � TC�N #89 = ............ _ __ __ — _ _ _ __ = = =_ __ _ - - -- - - -_- - - -_ _ _ — __ _ _ _ _ -_ R _ _ -- -_- _ --- - - =_ =_ __- __ _ = - _ - _ -- - - - - -- - -- - = -- = - - - - - - -- __ _._ - - -_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _____ __ - - - -- - - - - -- - - -_ -_ - - - - -- _ - _ -_ -- _ - - = _ - -- - - _ _ _ R 5 = - ----------- ---- ---- ------- ----- --- ------ __ _ _ - - -__ - - - -- I / C 2 R3 CIA R - A C/ - - R,S� _ R3' I .. _. . "' � J.. .Ply .. �1 __ - _ Z '.`./ •�•, y �`: t l } t i CIA 4 !! 5 T 1JE ,�.__._,� _ .� R7 4 r . ._n t i f _ C 2 CZ t t j i �- ti j — i - t , L 1 � C� -t) F I ) . r ... ,.� L f _ - -_ _ -__ _ -___ �•� _ /.. i .. � i aarrE �r i i cl1 -1 • —_s v__ -,_ __ � _ _ _ ! - 1 a --- —• • -- _ .`+E I II - _ - _ti � f _ 1 11 •� � —f � � � AREA RECOMMENDED FOR REZONING _ ________ _ _ : = - -_ == AMEND MEN R -- - -- - -- = == - - - -} == = _ -____ _ ______ = =__ __ d ----------- C2, C2 R5 C2, C2 - i CIA - - jp a ,f CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 4 600 1200 , - -- ',1800 2100 ZONING DISTRICTS - - -- -- ALL DISTINCT 904PICA 11[! CXTtWO T'LRr[NOICILRIILT TO TN( CINI[11LW[! a sTaicta ALL ulAf M)T OTN[OTTISL O[]lauTED ARC 41 ULTIM" I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 7th day of May , 1990 at 7 -30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1190. COMMERCE DISTRICT (C2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (C2) Commerce District zoning classification: Tract A, R. L S No 1477 Block 1 and Block 2. Richardson Park Addition Tracts A, F, and H R. L S No 1482 Tract A, R. L. S. No. 1538 Tract B, R. L. S No 1572 Tracts A and D, R. L. S No 1594 Section 35 -1200. INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (I -1). The following properties are hereby established as being within the I -1 Industrial Park District zoning classification: [Tracts A, B, C, D, E, F, and H, R. L. S. No. 1482] [Tract A, R. L. S. No. 1538] Tracts A, [B,] C, [D, E, F,] and G, R. L. S. No. 1572 [Tracts A and D, R. L. S. No. 1594] Tracts A and B R. L. S. No. 1619 ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date Published Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter) . II CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 7th day of May , 1990 at 7:30 p .m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider and amendment to Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances Regarding Collection of Yard Waste. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING COLLECTION OF YARD WASTE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 7 -103. REFUSE HAULERS REGULATIONS. Subdivision 13. Yard Waste Collection. A licensed refuse collector providing residential refuse collection service must separately collect and dispose of yard waste Within 15 days after notification from the City, a licensed refuse collector providing residential refuse collection service must give the city manager a detailed description of: a. The manner by which the collector intends to separately collect and dispose of yard waste; b. The manner by which the collector intends to account for the amount of yard waste collected; and a. The method by which the collector will inform its customers of the yard waste collection program The collector must take the yard waste to a disposal site or transfer site approved by the city manager for subsequent com ost _ p ing, l d d ng, or both. The licensed collector must keep accurate accounting of the amount of yard waste collected and must within 30 days of the end of each calendar Year, submit a written report to the city manager detailing the amount of yard waste collected and disposed of for composting or landspreading during the year, Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) z MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA APRIL 26, 1990 STUDY SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Mark Maloney and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Sander had called to say she would not likely be able to attend at all and was excused and that Commissioner Holmes had called to say that he would be late. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the April 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. The Secretary began the business of the meeting by introducing City Manager Gerald Splinter in order for him to review with the Commission the Goals and Strategies /Action plan for the 1990 planning session which would be coming up in one week. The City Manager reviewed with the Commission the 1990 Goals and Strategies /Action Plan on a point by point basis. The first priority area from the 1989 planning session was crime and drugs. He reviewed some of the drug education and prevention programs being pursued by the City, including the DARE program in the grade schools, including two grade schools in Brooklyn Park, a joint powers drug enforcement program and the Humboldt /Camden Task Force. He also reviewed what is happening with the drug task force, the crimewatch program, the battered spouse youth program, the crime prevention fund and the police master plan update. Commissioner Holmes arrived at 7:40 p.m. The City Manager went on to review the area of housing and noted that the City is working on developing a maintenance for commercial and industrial buildings. He also noted housing rehab program initiatives, subsidized elderly housing, a coordinated housing maintenance program in which the City develops and periodically 4 -26 -90 _1_ reviews enforcement action on the most problematic properties in the City s they relate to housing, nuisance and Y g, health code violations. He also noted the group home siting process which has been under stud for over a ear. The City Manager e Y y y g next reviewed budget and finance priorities, including the impact of recent legislation, changes in the property tax and state aid system, alternative revenue sources, local government aid funding, and financing for various housing programs. The City Manager next went on to discuss priorities relating to economic development and redevelopment. He noted that the City is working on having a market analysis similar to the Maxfield Housing Study done for the commercial and industrial parcels in the City. He again mentioned the maintenance code for commercial and industrial buildings. He also stated that the City is working on a formal development and redevelopment process or policy and that the City is examining the feasibility of redevelopment projects in the areas of 50th and France, 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, and the Lynbrook Bowl area. The City Manager went on to review priorities in the area of communications including the City Newsletter, cable television, newspaper coverage and ways of informing the public regarding redevelopment projects. The City Manager then noted the area of demographic changes in the community and the impacts on housing, the need for a senior citizens drop -in center, and the impact on the park and recreation system in the City. He added the need for evaluating the needs of an aging population. Finally, the City Manager noted the priorities for public facilities in the City, including City building needs and a review of the park system within the City. The City Manager asked the Commission whether they had any questions regarding the 1990 planning session and the goals and priorities. Commissioner Johnson asked for the time of the meeting. The City Manager responded that it would be on Thursday, May 3 at 6:00 p.m. for dinner and meeting at 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the effect of the funding cuts recently passed by the legislature. The City Manager noted that the final effect has not been determined, but that a preliminary estimate of the impact was that the City would lose about $137,000. He stated that he was not sure how that funding loss would be dealt with, but that it is manageable within g a budget of over $10,000,000. Commissioner Bernards also asked about the impact of changes to Tax Increment Financing district laws. The City Manager responded that staff are looking at that development, but that most of the changes passed by the legislature were directed at new development projects on vacant land. He stated that redevelopment projects and housing projects would still be okay for the most part and that this is the area that Brooklyn Center is using tax increment financing for. Commissioner Bernards also asked about capital improvements and whether the City tries to tie in its planning with other agencies. The City Manager answered that the City meets annually with the Brooklyn Center School District and 4 -26 -90 -2- I also invites representatives of the Robbinsdale, Anoka and Osseo districts to meet and compare notes and try to avoid surprises and duplication. APPLICATION NOS. 90010 AND 90011 (Brooklyn United Methodist Church) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two regular items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to make some additions to the Brooklyn United Methodist Church to use the residence at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard for church ministries, and to expand the parking lot north of the church. The second application introduced was a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the existing Brooklyn United Methodist Church site and three residential lots to the north being acquired by the church for expansion of the parking lot. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports pertaining to these two applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 90010 and 90011 attached) . The Secretary also pointed out in his review of the site and building plan application that B612 curb and gutter would be required around all parking and driving areas in the parking lot and that this should assist drainage of the area. The Secretary also stated that any use of the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard should be accessory to the church use; that it should not be used for day care or by another organization without amending the special use permit. He noted that there is no indication that such a use is intended, but he wished to make that clear. The Secretary also recommended revisions to Condition No. 6 and Condition No. 15 of the staff report for Application No. 90010 by adding wording that those conditions would be subject to a final determination by the Building Official with respect to the requirements of the Building Code. The Secretary also stated that there was a need to evaluate parking needs for the church after the new lot is built and that it was not automatically certain that there would be excess land available on the off -site lot for subdivision in the future. The City Manager left at approximately 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Johnson asked how old the house was at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary responded that he was not sure. Commissioner Ainas stated that he would guess that it was a pre World War II house. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it was likely that the house would need significant improvements for it to meet code. The Secretary responded that he was not aware that any review of the house had been made. He stated that the Building Official would have to review the house in light of the building code and especially to review the requirement for handicapped access to the house. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Tom Twohig, the architect for the project, pointed out that the church has been at the site for 136 years and 4-26-90 _3_ that it is deeply ingrained in the community. He noted that the church is expanding and needs some elbow room in which to operate. He pointed out that the building has been added to a number of times and there are multiple levels in the building. He also pointed out that most of the parking for the church is across the street which is a safety problem. Mr Twohig said the church is working with Habitat for Humanity to relocate the houses that it has purchased along Noble Avenue North. He stated that the access location on Noble Avenue North will tend to cut down on the cut - through traffic between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue North. He added that he had brought lighting details and pointed out that there is a fourth light pole on the site plan that was not noted by staff in their report. He pointed out that it is located in the southeast area of the parking lot. Mr. Twohig then went on to review the plans for the building additions and modifications. He pointed out that the building will be entirely handicapped accessible when the improvements are complete. Chairperson Malecki asked for a response to the list of conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Twohig stated that he and Dave Anderson of the building committee had reviewed Condition Nos. 6 and 15 with staff earlier in the day and that he felt satisfied with the revision proposed by staff that would leave the matter of fire sprinklering the main building and handicapped access to the house up to a final determination by the Building Official. Chairperson Malecki asked about providing trees across the street on the off -site lot. Mr. Twohig responded that vegetation for that area was not shown on the survey and, therefore, was not included in the site plan. He pointed out that there a number of trees on the site and he hoped it would not be necessary to add as many as recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was concerned regarding the number of services at the church, the Sunday School attendance, the timing of the services and how all of these factors affected the flow of traffic into and out of the site. Mr. David Anderson, of the building committee at Brooklyn United Methodist Church, responded to this concern. Regarding the services, he stated that the church is experiencing growth in activity as well as in attendance. He stated that the church would like to have expanded the sanctuary, but that there were significant building constraints in doing so. He stated that another way of adding seats is to add a third service which the church has done. He stated that the church has had trouble getting the first service out before the second service arrives and that this has led to some traffic congestion. He stated that the church may space the first and second services further apart in order to allow the parking lot to be vacated and reduce the traffic problem. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 90010 and 90011) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on 4 -26 -90 -4- 0 the special use permit for the church expansion and the use of the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard and also on the preliminary plat proposed by the church. She asked whether anyone present wished to comment. Mr. Mike Hoffman, of 4715 Wingard Lane, then addressed the Commission at some length and reviewed some of the concerns contained in a letter addressed to the commission on April 10. He stated that the concerns include the fence and grade of the land relative to their properties. He stated that the residents to the north wanted a buffer zone which they would maintain. He stated that the fencing and landscaping would affect their property values. He stated that he has talked to realtors and that they say the expansion of the church parking lot will put a ceiling on their property values in the future. Mr. Hoffman stated that the plan that they were shown indicated pea rock between the church fence and the residents' fences and that the residents preferred sod and trees between the two fences. He also stated that the residents want a 10' high fence to be placed 15' from their property line. He also stated that the fence should be built low to the ground so that litter and children could not get through underneath the fence. He stated that placing the church fence 5' from the residents' fences would allow for pedestrian traffic through that area. He expressed concern for security if this area were allowed to exist. Mr. Hoffman stated that the residents were concerned about lighting for security. He encouraged the use of parking lot lights that would face the church and would not spill over onto the residents' property. Regarding the dumpster location, he stated that they were concerned regarding odors coming from the dumpsters, especially during the summer when winds would tend to be from the south and southwest. He concluded by stating that the property owners along Wingard Lane are willing to sell their houses to the church. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Hoffman whether the residents had been contacted by the church during the past two years while this project has been planned. Mr. Hoffman stated that the first contact was approximately three weeks ago. Commissioner Johnson asked whether their prime concern was with on- street parking. Mr. Hoffman agreed that that was a concern. He pointed out that there is refuse discarded from cars and that they sometimes park on the grass. He also stated that when cars are parked on both sides of Wingard Lane, there is a narrow channel to drive in. Chairperson Malecki noted that those present had heard the staff report. She stated that it seemed that some of the requests made by the neighbors were impractical. Mr. Hoffman asked that the buffer area required along the north side of the parking lot be incorporated into their yards. The Secretary pointed out problems 4 -26 -90 -5- with fences being too close to each other. The Secretary stated that it is best for the property owner to maintain his own property. He stated that there would be a need for someone to maintain the area between the fences. Mr. Hoffman asked who would be responsible for an injury if it were to occur in the area between the fences. The Secretary stated that if the area belonged to the church, it would probably be their responsibility if there was negligence involved. He stated that, if the neighbors were opposed to putting the fences 5' apart, he would recommend that the new fence for the church be put along the property line. Mr. Wladymyr (Wally) Szulga, of 4707 Wingard Lane, expressed concern about problems with activity at the church, including unsafe conditions and fence maintenance problems. Mr. Hoffman added that the residents were concerned that lights would shine through the fence. The Secretary pointed out that the fence would be an opaque fence, made of board -on -board construction. Mr. Hoffman stated that the residents are willing to maintain the buffer area, that they would take down their own rear fences and tie their side fences into the new church fence. The Planner expressed concern about the possibility of an adverse possession claim being made someday in the future. He stated that if the residents close off the property and include it in their own lots and maintain it with the church's knowledge, that after 15 years an adverse possession claim might be filed. He recommended that the Commission not accept this arrangement to avoid these problems in the future. Commissioner Ainas stated that doing what Mr. Hoffman desired would put a legal cloud on the transfer of property in the future. Mr. Hoffman stated that he was willing to investigate the legality of his idea. Commissioner Bernards noted that the application would still have to go before the City Council and he asked whether the legality of the buffer area being maintained by the residents to the north could be investigated between now and then. The Secretary stated that it wasn't so much a question of whether it could be done legally as to whether it was advisable. He stated that it would open up a number of complications. He stated that, if the alleyway between the fences is undesirable to the residents, he would suggest that the fence be moved to the property line to eliminate this area. Commissioner Holmes agreed that the church may not want others maintaining its property if they are responsible. Mr. Dave Anderson, of the building committee for the church, stated that the church wanted to maintain its own fence and land. The Planner pointed out that one reason for the gap between the fences was so that there would not be two fences side by side. He stated that if the residents a.._:ang Wingard Lane are willing to take down the back sides of their fences, he would suggest that the fence be placed along the property line and both parties can maintain the land up to the fence. Mr. David Anderson stated that he was concerned about maintenance of the fence and that the 5' area between fences would allow the church to get to the other side of the fence to maintain it. 4 -26 -90 -6- Mrs. Eleanore Maegi, of 4721 Wingard Lane, pointed out that she had lived in the area for many years and that she was beginning to feel crowded out. She stated that her main objection was to the location of the dumpster. She pointed out that she is allergic to insect bites and has to carry her own safety kit. She stated that she talked to Pastor Erikson and that he had told her that the dumpster would stay next to the church. Mrs. Maegi also stated that drainage runs onto their property now and that their lot is lower than the area where the parking lot would be. She stated that if this is not corrected, the drainage problem will get worse. The Secretary pointed out that the parking lot would be bounded by curb and gutter and that it would be pitched to drain toward a catch basin in the middle of the lot. This would be away from her property. Mrs. Maegi expressed her concern about snow melting on the side of the parking lot. The Secretary pointed out that a berm would be constructed approximately in the middle of the buffer area and that this would cause drainage of snow on the church side of the fence to be back toward the parking lot. Mrs. Maegi stated that she would like the fence 15' away from their property line. She stated that she felt she had a problem with the dumpster and that the fence was too close. She stated that they would have a harder time selling their house with the development as proposed. Mr. David Anderson then addressed the Commission regarding some of these concerns. He stated that the church had discussed the fence with the neighbors before submitting the plans. He also pointed out that the discussion between Mrs. Maegi and Pastor Erikson regarding the dumpster was three years ago and that plans have changed since then because the church has acquired more houses. He stated the drainage in the area will be improved. Mr. Anderson also pointed out that the two houses along Noble which the church has acquired are being donated to Habitat for Humanity, not sold. Mr. Anderson stated that the parking lot expansion was part of a ten year plan and that the church would not expand further before at least the year 2000. He stated that the church had talked to the residents along Wingard, that one resident was unable to talk with them and that one was unwilling. Mr. Anderson also pointed out that the total cost of the construction project for the church was $1.2 million and that this was a lot of money for only a 4,400 sq. ft. addition to the building. He also pointed out that the additions to the building would make the church handicapped accessible throughout. Regarding cut - through traffic, Mr. Anderson stated that the church is trying to deal with that in its proposed parking lot plan. He stated that the cut - through traffic is a result of closing the intersection of Wingard Lane and Brooklyn Boulevard. Regarding the residents request for Blue Spruce trees, he stated that he did not have a problem with them, but that he did not think they would be viable in the northerly greenstrip which would not be wide enough for mature Spruce trees. Regarding the possibility of selling all or part of the off -site lot to Edina Realty, Mr. Anderson stated that there have been no 4 -26 -90 -7- discussions regarding that to this point. He stated that the church's long term plan is to put all parking for the church on- site and that the off -site lot might be discarded in the future. Regarding parking on Noble Avenue, he stated that the church would agree to eliminate parking on the west side of Noble to alleviate sight lines for cars coming out of the parking lot. But he recommended continuing to allow parking on the east side of Noble. He stated that the church's parking lot would accommodate parking on -site 49 weeks out of the year, but Easter and Christmas services would probably still need some on- street parking. Mr. Anderson also stated that the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard was built in about 1950. He stated that the house is in excellent condition. He stated that the church was making handicapped bathrooms and access possible in the main building and did not feel that it would be feasible to make these modifications to the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. Regarding the dumpster location, Mr. Anderson stated that the church is willing to put the dumpster a little further away, but he pointed out that the trash would be in bags and that the dumpster could certainly have a lid. He also pointed out that there would be an enclosure around the dumpster as well as a fence along the north side of the property. He stated that the church did not want the dumpster to be right next to the church or along Brooklyn Boulevard, but that it should be out of sight. Chairperson Malecki asked how deep the v cuts were in the fence. Mr. Tom Twohig stated that they would be about 4 1/2 feet deep and 12 feet wide. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the church intended to sprinkle the area between the fences. Mr. Anderson responded that that was not planned at this time, that the church would do manual sprinkling. Mr. Anderson stated that the church wanted to put rock on the parking lot side of the fence, but that they were willing to put sod on the side toward the residences. The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance requires that the buffer be a green area and that it should, therefore, be sodded entirely. Mr. Wally Szulga, of 4707 Wingard Lane, asked who he should sue when his basement floods, the City, or the church. Mr. Lutgen, of 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard, expressed concern about noise from the traffic. He stated that the changes proposed by the church would accelerate the problem of noise. He also stated that as property values dropped for the homes along Wingard Lane, it would be to the advantage of the church in acquiring those homes. He asked what would happen to the north side of Wingard Lane in the future when the church eventually expands up to Wingard Lane. He asked why he should upgrade his house if the houses across the street are going to go downhill. He also stated that he had never been approached by the church regarding the expansion project. Mr. Lutgen also expressed concerns regarding pedestrian traffic, safety problems on Noble and the possibility of traffic backing up in Brooklyn Boulevard trying to get into the church. 4 -26 -90 -8- a Mr. Bruce Ericson, the senior pastor for Brooklyn United Methodist Church then addressed the Commission. He reviewed some of the past history of the church and the area along Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble. He pointed out that there has been tremendous growth in the community and of the church since the church began 136 years ago. He stated that the church was not here to make problems worse, but that it was trying to make problems go away. He pointed out that the church bought the homes along Noble and Brooklyn Boulevard at the highest value determined by realtors evaluating the properties. He pointed out that it would cost the church $5,000 for each parking space that it was providing. He pointed out that the members of the church are not rich, but blue collar people that live in the area. He expressed regrets about the problem with the fence at the off -site lot, but cited the recommendation of a carpenter that there was not much that could be done until the ground thawed. Pastor Ericson also stated that it would be possible to move the dumpster to another location. He stated that he did not want to cause any health problems for his neighbors. Pastor Erikson pointed out that some neighbors in the area are members of the church and that some neighbors have fears, some of which are real and some of which are silly. He stated that the church did not want to make things tough for the neighbors. He pointed out, however, that the church has to deal with the growth of its congregation with the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard in the past and with the traffic that results from people moving into the area. Mrs. Eleanore Maegi stated that it was accidents on Wingard Lane, one of which was fatal, which caused the closing of Wingard Lane. She then showed the Planning Commission a picture of her property. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else wished to comment regarding the applications. Hearing no one she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing on Application Nos. 90010 and 90011. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Johnson stated that it should be possible to move the dumpster. The Secretary concurred, noting that the church appeared willing to move the dumpster. He stated that this should not be a big problem. Commissioner Bernards asked about closing off the 5' area between the church fence and the residents' fences. The Secretary asked that the Planning Commission give direction regarding the fence issue. He stated that he felt there would be Problems if maintenance of this area were left to others besides the property owner. Commissioner Holmes stated that he felt there could be pedestrian traffic through the area if it were not closed 4 -26 -90 -9- off. He stated that he presumed that the 10' high fence request was out of the question. The Secretary pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6' high fence to screen parking lots from residential property. He stated that a fence is generally better at providing effective screening on a year round basis than a hedge would be. He pointed out that the purpose of the fence was to screen out cars, not the church. There was a brief discussion regarding the type of trees requested by the neighbors. Commissioner Johnson stated Blue Spruce get to be bad news after awhile. Commissioner Holmes noted the problems on Noble from the church and asked whether there had been accidents in the area. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of the accident rate for that location, but he added that there is probably danger in crossing the street since it is a collector street. The Secretary pointed out that the parking requirement for the church is based on sanctuary seating. He stated that this works in most cases, but that when classes are going on at the same time as church services, there may be problems. There is also a problem if services overlap, or there is not sufficient time between services. The Secretary stated that what the church is doing is basically an improvement to the area by providing more on -site parking. He pointed out that businesses in the City and other uses have to have parking on their own site. He noted that it is not illegal to park on the street, but that on- street parking may be evaluated by the City if there is a safety concern and can be restricted, forcing parking to be on the church property only. Commissioner Holmes commented on the noise problem. He stated that he could see there will be an increase in noise in the area, but that the fence should help the noise issue. The Secretary stated that if the Commission is convinced that a higher fence will address noise problems, it could require a higher fence. He stated, however, that most of the noise in the area is coming from Brooklyn Boulevard, not from the church parking lot. He also pointed out that even though existing trees may tend to ameliorate noise problems, any property owner has a right to cut down trees on their property. Chairperson Malecki asked where the decision to put the fence where it was proposed came from. The Secretary stated that it may have come to some extent from the staff's recommendation as it was pointed out to the representative of the church what maintenance problems would exist with the fence. He stated that shrubs could also be used for screening, but it would take 10 years to become effective screening, whereas fences are effective immediately. Chairperson Malecki asked the Planning Commission for their opinions on the no man's land between the church's fence and the residents' fences. Commissioner Ainas recommended leaving the proposed fence as it is shown on the plans and that the area be 4 -26 -90 -10- closed off at either end. Commissioner Bernards also recommended closing the area off. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that the grass on the north side of the fence would not be watered and that it would die. Commissioner Bernards stated that he did not see a problem with the area if there was a gate to prevent pedestrian traffic through it. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the church was being very accommodating in its plans. She also endorsed the idea of a gate. She recommended allowing parking on- street for a year to see how the new parking lot functioned. She concluded by saying that she felt the plan was very appropriate. Commissioner Johnson encouraged the church to try to police the litter problem more from cars parking on Wingard Lane. The Secretary pointed out that parking lot screening across Noble Avenue North is also required under the Zoning Ordinance and recommended that the fence be continued at a 4' height along Noble to screen the lot from across the street. Commissioner Johnson stated that he did not like the proposed arrangement with two fences, one for the church and one for the private residents. He stated that the no man's land between the fences does not make sense to him. He recommended to the City Council that the two groups of people reach a compromise with a single fence. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90010 (Brooklyn United Methodist Church Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 90010, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted for a church and accessory uses. The use may not be altered or expanded beyond this specific approval without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits and prior to construction of the new parking lot. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4 -26 -90 -11- 6. Subject to a final determination by the Building Official with regard to applicable codes, the building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance agreement. 10. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Fire hydrants shall be installed and fire lanes designated in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Chief. 13. The barrier across the access to the off -site parking lot from Brooklyn Boulevard shall be improved in accordance with recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 14. The plans shall be modified, prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate: a) the addition of at least four shade trees in the greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard and the addition of two trees in the greenstrip along Noble Avenue North. b) the addition of a light pole at the entrance off Noble Avenue North and the provision of lighting details including height and type of fixture and a photometric plan giving light intensities near property lines. C) The extension of a 4' high fence within the Noble Avenue North greenstrip to screen the parking lot north of the church from residences across Noble. 4 -26 -90 -12- 15. Subject to a final determination by the Building Official with respect to the requirements of the Building Code, the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard shall be provided with handicapped access and bathroom facilities. The use of the house shall only be for accessory church ministry purposes such as adult and youth meetings and education classes. No other use by a nonchurch organization is acknowledged with this approval. 16. The wood fence along the east side of the off -site parking lot shall be repaired on or before May 5, 1990 as ordered by the Building Inspector. 17. If there are two fences, one belonging to the church and another belonging to residents abutting Wingard Lane, access to the area between the fences shall be closed off with a lockable gate at both ends. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the conditions should address relocation of the dumpster. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt, based on the statements from the church, that that matter would be addressed without a condition. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90011 (Brooklyn United Methodist Church) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90011, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The requirement to plat the parcels comprising the off - site lot is hereby waived. However, the church shall file a legal encumbrance with the title to the property at the County which will bind the use of the off -site parking lot to the principal site of the church. Said encumbrance shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to filing. The filing of the encumbrance shall be concurrent with or prior to the filing of the plat at the County. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 4 -26 -90 -13- The City Engineer and Commissioner Ainas left at 10:23 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 90009 (Keith SturmZReliance Real Estate Services Inc. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to allow retail use of the Gold's Gym building at 2920 County Road 10 with fewer parking stalls than required by ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90009 attached). The Secretary explained that the formula applied to the original Gold's Gym building was one space for every 200 sq. ft. which is a general commercial formula for uses not specifically listed. He stated that the building was technically not deficient in parking based on that formula. The Secretary also distributed to the Commission an April 25 letter from Chris Conroy, the owner of the St. Paul Book building, in which he stated he has no objection to the variance. Commissioner Bernards asked what agreement, if any, existed with the lot to the north of the Gold's Gym for parking. The Secretary stated that any agreement that existed was a private agreement that was not required by the City. The Planner stated that it was evident that the old parking formula for the health club was apparently not sufficient. He added, however, that the experience with the retail formula is that it places a heavy burden on smaller buildings. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Pete Helger of Reliance Real Estate Services addressed the Commission at some length. Regarding the Standards for a Variance, he stated that he felt a hardship does exist because land cannot be added to the site in order to meet parking requirements. He noted that this is not an unusual situation for existing buildings. As to the example in the staff report of reusing the building as a restaurant, he agreed that the site simply would not work as a restaurant, that there was not enough parking. He stated that he felt the request by Jo Ann Fabrics to use the building is, in the long run best interest of the community. He pointed out that the lease would be 20 years. As to uniqueness, Mr. Helger stated that the building is functionally obsolete. He agreed that variances shouldn't be granted on the basis of market conditions, but should at least be considered. He stated that the building and site in question are good for a low traffic use because of the circuitous access, not a high traffic use. He stated that Jo Ann Fabrics would be a destination type commercial use. He then reviewed other businesses in the area and stated that they, too, are all destination type businesses. He stated that they were asking the City to be flexible in enforcing its regulations. He stated that it was not practical to think of demolishing the building and that it was more cost effective to convert the building to retail than to office use. 4 -26 -90 -14- Mr. Helger stated that he agreed that the City was not obliged to grant a variance to accommodate a reuse of the building, but he felt that the Standards for a Variance are met in this case. He then distributed to the Planning Commission and reviewed on an overhead transparency the parking formulas for retail uses of other cities in the Metro area. He noted that most of them require five spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area and that if such a formula were adopted in Brooklyn Center, the retail use of the Gold's Gym building would be legal. He noted that planning staff agree that the Brooklyn Center parking formula for retail uses penalizes smaller buildings. Mr. Helger went on to state that they did not have time to wait for an ordinance change, but needed to act fast in order to make the deal work with Jo Ann Fabrics. Mr. Helger also pointed out that in 1986, David Otto applied for a variance for the St. Paul Book building which was ultimately approved. At that time the City Council questioned whether other buildings were in a similar situation. The conclusion at that time, he said, was that they did not think so. He stated, however, that the Gold's Gym building is in a very similar situation. He asked for approval of the variance application based on this precedent. Mr. George Vestrum, a real estate broker for Jo Ann Fabrics, pointed out that Jo Ann Fabrics is presently in Brookdale. He stated that they wanted to expand in a new building. He pointed out that the new building would be three times as much space as they have at Brookdale. He stated that Jo Ann Fabrics wants to stay in the community, but that they have a short time frame in which to make a decision. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that the thinking on the part of the two City Council members that voted against the retail formula in 1986 was that the retail formula had served the City well and that it shouldn't be changed now. He noted that one of the Council members looked for a tradeoff involving more landscaping. The Secretary explained that this would have led to nonconforming situations and was not adopted. The Secretary went on to explain that a study by the Urban Land Institute regarding parking at shopping centers concluded that somewhat more parking is actually demanded for larger shopping centers than for smaller shopping centers. He pointed out that the City's formula is just backwards from this finding. The Secretary concluded by pointing out that the variance granted in 1986 was probably not a very good decision, but was approved because it was thought that an ordinance amendment would soon be adopted that would legitimize the action taken in the variance. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the original Health Spa building was allowed by variance. The Secretary explained that the building and site met the parking formula of one space for every 200 sq. ft. 4 -26 -90 -15- which was the basic commercial requirement applied to the building at that time. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission made a recommendation to reconsider the ordinance amendment, should they not act on the variance and, therefore, hold up the deal. The Secretary answered that he felt that this case does not meet the variance standards. He stated that the hardship in question has been created by the owner and that the situation is not very unique. The Secretary recommended denial of the variance, but a change in the ordinance for the retail parking formula. He suggested that the Commission send the variance on to the Council with a recommendation to deny. Chairperson Malecki agreed that that was the best route, to recommend denial of the variance and adoption of an ordinance amendment. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90009) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to comment regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Planner then distributed to the Commission a packet of material relating to the retail parking formula and alternate formulas. He briefly reviewed some of the materials in the packet and stated that his own experience from living and shopping in Brooklyn Center was that there was a noticeable surplus of parking at smaller retail centers. He stated that the only retail center that used up all the parking that it had was Brookdale. He pointed out that one effect of an ordinance change would be to reduce the formula on smaller retail centers. Another issue that needed to be addressed, however, was whether the basic retail parking formula should be reduced to 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. or 5.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. He explained that if the formula were reduced to 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, then Brookdale would come very close to being in compliance with parking requirements. However, he stated, if the basic formula were kept at 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, then Brookdale would be deficient in parking by approximately 500 parking stalls. He pointed out that Brookdale is considering an expansion and that this parking deficiency would have to be addressed in the near future. Mr. Pete Helger approached the Commission and asked that they approve the variance and the ordinance change. He pointed out the time constraint they were faced with in dealing with Jo Ann Fabrics. The Secretary responded that the time constraint was not the City's problem and should not drive the decision on a basic Policy issue. 4 -26 -90 -16- There followed a brief discussion of alternate parking formulas. The owner of the Gold's Gym building, Mr. Israel Krawetz. stated that the City wants the best environment for its citizens and for the businesses that operate in Brooklyn Center. He asked again that the Commission approve both the variance and the ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki asked the Planning Commission how they felt about the parking formula, whether it should be 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft of gross floor area. Commissioner Holmes stated that, based on his experience at Brookdale, he would recommend that the formula be 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Commissioners Johnson and Bernards agreed that the formula should be 5.5 spaces. Chairperson Malecki stated that she did not feel that the Standards for a Variance were met. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 90009 (Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate Services) and Recommendation for Adoption of an Ordinance Amendment Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend denial of Application No. 90009 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met and also, to recommend to the City Council that it adopt an ordinance amendment establishing a retail formula of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area no matter what the size of the building. Commissioner Bernards asked how long it would take for an ordinance amendment to be accomplished. The Secretary stated that it would take about 45 days for an ordinance to become effective following City Council action. Commissioner Johnson asked that it be communicated that the Commission would like to see Jo Ann Fabrics accommodated even though a variance is not warranted. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:29 p.m. Chairperson is 4 -26 -90 -17- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90010 Applicant: Brooklyn United Methodist Church Location: 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a combination of building additions totaling 4,454 sq. ft. and a greatly expanded on -site parking lot at the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard. Also proposed is the conversion of a single - family home at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard to use for church ministries. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by Noble Avenue North on the east and south, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, and by single - family homes facing Wingard Lane on the north. The church has purchased, or agreed to purchase, the homes at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard, 7207 Brooklyn Boulevard and 7215 Noble Avenue North. The two homes along Noble Avenue North would be removed and a new parking lot would be installed on that land and on a portion of the site where the remaining house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard is located. The entire area is to be replatted into a single parcel under Application No. 90011. There is a also an off -site parking lot serving the church at the southeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue North. No significant changes are proposed for that site under this application. Churches are allowed by special use permit in the R1 zone, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained by a collector of arterial street. In this case, Brooklyn Boulevard is an arterial street and Noble is a collector. Access /Parking The major site change proposed by the plans is the addition of an 88 stall parking lot north of and contiguous to the church, including five (5) required handicapped stalls near what is to become a major entrance on the north side of the building. In addition to the 88 stalls on the new lot north of the church, there are 150 existing stalls on the off -site lot. Total off - street parking available to the church would increase from 168 spaces at present (there are presently 18 stalls next to the building) to 238 spaces, an increase of 70 spaces. The parking requirement for churches contained in the Zoning Ordinance is one stall for every three seats. The seating capacity of the sanctuary for Brooklyn United Methodist Church is estimated at 491. The parking requirement is, therefore, at least 164 spaces. No expansion of the sanctuary is proposed at this time but we are aware of an i existing demand for on- street parking n the neighborhood. The proposed additional parking should help alleviate some of this on- street parking problem, but we are not certain that it will be eliminated, especially if some on- street parking areas remain more convenient than some off - street parking areas. r 4 -26 -90 _1_ 1 Application No. 90010 continued Staff have received a letter (attached) from residents along Wingard Lane, abutting the expanded church site. One request made by those residents is that Noble Avenue North and Wingard Lane be posted "No parking during church service." The City's Administrative Traffic Committee has considered the plan and the request by the neighbors to limit on- street parking. They have indicated that, if a majority of the property owners in the area petition for a limitation on on- street parking, the City will post the area for at least a year and re- evaluate at that time if property owners change their minds. The elimination of on- street parking during church services in this neighborhood would certainly force the church to provide adequate off - street parking and perhaps to reschedule services so that there is less overlap and more availability of parking. This issue should be explored with the applicant and the neighbors during the public hearing. As to access, staff and the applicant's architect have worked on this issue at some length. At present, there is one access on Brooklyn Boulevard and one on Noble Avenue North for the church. In addition, the three homes all have accesses. The proposed plan calls for widening the existing access drive off Brooklyn Boulevard to 24' in width and closing the driveway to the residence at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. Hennepin County has indicated this is acceptable to them. Along Noble Avenue North, the access drive for the church will be moved northward approximately 100' to an area about in the middle of the parking lot. The driveways for the existing residences will, of course, be eliminated. The net result is that three access drives will be eliminated off busy streets. We regard this as an improvement. One major concern of Hennepin County and of City staff is the possibility for cut - through traffic through the church site between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue North. This is an existing problem. The proposed parking lot layout with a new access on Noble approximately 100' P north of the existing P Y i g driveway will be less convenient for cars to move through the lot to shortcut between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble, though it will still allow access from both streets. Cut - through traffic certainly will not be eliminated, but we regard the proposed access arrangement as an improvement. The Director of Public Works has also expressed concern over the safety of the present access to the off -site lot from Brooklyn Boulevard. A better barrier needs to be placed in front of this driveway during weekdays to clearly mark that it is closed to through traffic. Landscaping The proposed plan calls for new landscaping in and around the new parking lot. Nothing is really proposed around the church building (where there are a number of existing mature trees) or around the 4 -26 -90 -2- Application No. 90010 continued existing off -site lot. The plan calls for 3 new Greenspire Littleleaf Lindens, 3 Littleleaf Lindens and 3 Norway Maples. In addition, the plan calls for 7 Red Splendor Crabapple, 3 Spring Snow Crabapple, a Sugar Maple, and a Summit Green Ash. Five Crabs are proposed near the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard and others are shown near the church and the access off Noble. Shade trees are indicated in perimeter green areas and in parking lot islands. The total point value of existing and proposed plantings is at least 241 points. This works out to about 73 points per acre for the church property. Churches are not really covered in the landscape point system, but 73 points per acre is roughly comparable to the light industrial requirement. The neighbors along Wingard Lane have called for Spruce trees adjacent to their property. While some trees could be added in the 15' wide northerly greenstrip buffer, we feel that more landscaping would probably be appropriate on the off -site lot. No plantings are documented on the site and the church seems to feel that that portion of their property is not relevant to this application. However, we would recommend that at least four shade trees be added in the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip, at approximately 40' on center. A couple trees could also be added along Noble Avenue North. An important aspect of the proposed plans is the provision of a 6' high, board on board, wood fence within the northerly greenstrip. The fence is proposed about 5' off the north property line with triangular sections every so often to add stability. Some of the residents along Wingard already have fences. Placing the fence on the property line might, therefore, create an unmaintained area between fences. A 5' separation should at least be adequate room for someone to get between with a mower. The property owners to the north have recommended that the fence be placed right next to the parking lot with the 15' buffer on their side and maintained by them. We do not feel this is an appropriate arrangement. Maintenance of church property should be by the church and green area between the parking lot and the fence is necessary for aesthetics, landscape plantings, and snow storage. The neighbors have also called for a 10' high fence. However, this would exceed what is required by ordinance (6 and would, we feel, be an imposing structure, difficult to maintain. The purpose of the screening device is to screen out cars in the parking lot, not the church. We would, therefore, recommend acceptance of the size and location of the fence as proposed. Grading Drainage, and Utilities The land on which the proposed, new parking lot is to be constructed is fairly flat. One catch basin in the middle of the lot is proposed to collect most of the runoff. It will be connected by storm sewer to another catch basin in the southeast 4 -26 -90 -3- Application No. 90010 continued corner of the lot and ultimately to City storm sewer in Noble Avenue North. The plan proposes a modest 1' high berm in the northerly buffer area following along the same general location as the fence. The purpose of the berm is to insure that any snow stored in the greenstrip area drains back into the parking lot and not into the neighboring residential lots. Drainage is also a concern of the neighbors and we feel the plan is adequate in this respect. Buildina The building additions are in various locations. New classrooms in the lower level and the pastor's offices in the upper level are proposed on the north side of the building. A new narthex and vestibule will be added between the nursery wing adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard and the main part of the building. This is where a new major entrance will be established near the new north parking lot. A canopy is proposed to cover the walk in front of the building. In addition, there is to be a minor addition to the existing narthex toward Brooklyn Boulevard which will allow for a link up with the new narthex. Finally, there is to be an expansion of the Fellowship Hall into an open courtyard area in the middle of the building. This expansion area will have skylights above. The exterior treatment is to be a face brick to matching the existing exterior. The architect has also indicated that the church intends to fire - sprinkler the building. This will be a significant improvement. Lighting /Trash The plan calls for one light pole in the northerly greenstrip, one behind the church home at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard, and one on the south side of the entrance drive off Brooklyn Boulevard, just west of the new entrance canopy. No specifications have been provided yet on the size of the poles, or wattage of the fixtures. The lighting appears somewhat sparse to us. We would recommend the addition of at least one pole toward the southeast corner of the new lot and /or one at the Noble Avenue North entrance. The proposed dumpster location is just off the parking lot behind the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. A screened enclosure with a gate is proposed. The neighbors on Wingard Lane have requested that the dumpster be placed away from their residences. The proposed location will be about 18' from the north lot line. It will be closer to the church house than to adjacent residences, but, on the scale of the entire site, is fairly close to the neighboring residences. The church does not want to put the dumpster right next to the church. The location proposed is generally out of sight and is acceptable to staff. 4 -26 -90 -4- Application No. 90010 continued Use of House at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard Staff have requested from the applicant a statement as to the intended use of the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. David Anderson of the church building committee has responded with a brief letter (attached). In it, he states that the church may put the house to a variety of uses, including adult and youth meetings and adult education classes. He notes that youth will not use the house without adult supervision. This appears to pose no problem. Parking associated with the house will be available in the adjoining parking lot. The separate driveway serving the residence will be closed. Special Use Standards As a special use in the R1 zone, the church and any expansion is subject to the standards contained in Section 35 -220, Subsection 2 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Regarding standard (a) , we do not believe the expanded church will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. As to standard (b) , the expanded church and parking lot should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor should it adversely affect property values in the neighborhood. As to standard (c) the church expansion and parking lot should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. Finally, pertaining to standard (d) , the new parking spaces constructed by the church should reduce traffic congestion in the public streets by accommodating more church parking off - street, on their own property. In addition, the proposed access arrangement should somewhat discourage (though it will not eliminate) cut - through traffic between Noble and Brooklyn Boulevard. The parking problems in the neighborhood associated with the church will be reduced, if not eliminated, by the provision of more off - street parking. At the same time, the additions proposed to the church should not generate significant additional traffic. Therefore, the net effect should be a reduction in parking problems benefitting the neighborhood as well as the church. Recommendation Altogether, the proposal appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted for a church and accessory uses. The use may not be altered or expanded beyond this specific approval without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4 -26 - 90 -5- Application No. 90010 continued 3. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits and prior to construction of the new parking lot. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance agreement. 10. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to issuance of permits. 11. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Fire hydrants shall be installed and fire lanes designated in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Chief. 13. The barrier across the access to the off -site parking lot from Brooklyn Boulevard shall be improved in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 14. The plans shall be modified, prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate: a) the addition of at least four shade trees in the greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard and the addition of two trees in the greenstrip along Noble Avenue North. 4 -26 -90 -6- Application No. 90010 continued b the addition ition of a light pole at the entrance off Noble Avenue North and the provision of lighting details including height and type of fixture and a photometric plan giving light intensities near property lines. 15. The house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard shall be provided with handicapped access and bathroom facilities as required by the Handicapped Code. 16. The wood fence along the east side of the off -site parking lot shall be repaired on or before May 5, 1990 as ordered by the Building Inspector. 4 -26 -90 -7- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90011 Applicant: Brooklyn United Methodist Church Location: 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the existing Brooklyn United Methodist Church site and three adjacent residential parcels in order to accommodate a church expansion and new parking lot north of the church. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by single - family homes which face Wingard Lane, on the east and south by Noble Avenue North, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Under Section 35 -540 of the Zoning Ordinance, "multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development use and which are under common ownership shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey." In the present case, the four existing parcels will be under ownership and use of the church and, thus, the replatting is required. The proposed plat calls for a single parcel, to be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn United Methodist Church Addition. The lot area is 112,800 sq. ft. or 2.59 acres. The plat proposes drainage and utility easements of 5' in width along the north, interior property line and 10' in width adjacent to Noble Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. This conforms with ordinance requirements. There is also an existing 6' wide sidewalk easement along Brooklyn Boulevard. The requirement to combine adjacent parcels into a single lot would also normally apply to the off -site parking lot across Noble Avenue North which serves the church site. The parking lot site is composed of seven parcels plus some old vacated Noble Avenue North right -of -way. We have discussed the platting requirement with representatives of the church and they have indicated an interest in possibly subdividing off a portion of the off -site parking lot site in the next few years. They have asked that the platting requirement be deferred until that time. With the development of additional parking adjacent to the church, there will be some parking surplus, at least based on the sanctuary seating requirement. That parking surplus translates into a land surplus which could be subdivided off. Staff have indicated a willingness to defer the platting requirement for the off -site lot on condition that the church file a legal encumbrance binding the use of the off -site lot the church site. Such an encumbrance is required by Section 35- 701.3f of the Zoning Ordinance. It would be amended when a future subdivision would take place. Given such an encumbrance, we believe the platting requirement for the off -site lot can be waived. 4 -26 -90 -1- Application No. 90011 continued In eneral the g proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The requirement to plat the parcels comprising the off - site lot is hereby waived. However, the church shall file a legal encumbrance with the title to the property at the County which will bind the use of the off -site parking lot to the principal site of the church. Said encumbrance shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to filing. The filing of the encumbrance shall be concurrent with or prior to the filing of the plat at the County. 4 -26 -90 -2- i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90009 Applicant: Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate Services Location: 2920 County Road 10 (Gold's Gym) Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -704 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow retail use of the Gold's Gym commercial building at 2920 County Road 10. The proposed tenant would be a Jo Ann Fabrics store. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the south by County Road 10, on the west by TCF Savings Bank, on the north by the St. Paul Book and Stationery retail building and Northway Drive, and on the east by First Minnesota Savings Bank. Retail sales of fabric and related items is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. The variance is sought because there are only 56 parking spaces on the site. Section 35 -704 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 83 parking spaces for retail use of the 9,961 sq. ft. building. Therefore, the site will be deficient in parking by 27 stalls if the retail use is allowed. The applicant, Mr. Keith Sturm, is not the owner of the building, but a real estate agent seeking to market the property. He has submitted some background information on the property and the proposed use and has also made written arguments addressing the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance (see written submittal and ordinance section, attached) . A listing of the ordinance standards, a recitation of the applicant's arguments, and staff comments follow: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape,or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "A hardship is created by virtue of the fact that no expansion capability exists for the subject property to allow additional parking facilities to be constructed to match the existing building size. If the strict letter of the parking regulations were exercised, the available uses to occupy the property are severely limited, thus contributing to the perception of blight associated with long term vacant buildings. Additionally, the limited street access to the property is not well suited for higher traffic uses. This makes the property only appropriate for a low traffic, destination type of operation." Staff: The alleged hardship in this case is basically that the parcel is not large enough to provide the parking required for a permitted use within the zoning district. It is questionable whether this really constitutes a hardship. Restaurants are also 4 -26- . 90 -1- Application No. 90009 continued permitted in the C2 zone, but a restaurant of 10,000 s q . ft. would require at least 150 to 200 parking stalls and there is no question that this site could not accommodate such a use. Alternatively, an office use of the building in question would require only 50 parking stalls, within the amount available on the site. There will be substantial costs in remodeling the building to either an office or a retail use. The fact that a retail use of the building does not "fit" within the site (at least based on the ordinance parking formula) probably does not constitute a hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant seeks the variance because there is presently a market for retail uses in the area. Waiting for an office use might take longer since there is a surplus of such space right now. We would not recommend, however, that the City make zoning decisions on the basis of temporary market conditions, but rather on the long term best interests of the community. The practical consideration raised by the applicant in his written submittal is that Jo Ann Fabrics projects a need for a maximum of 20 parking stalls on most business days and 40 stalls on days with special sales. This demand would be accommodated by the 56 stalls available. The City has not in the past (and we not recommend now) used private parking forecasts to approve specific uses. Uses are approved and sites are designed on the basis of ordinance parking formulas. (Proof -of- parking has been acknowledged when an applicant does not feel so many parking spaces are required for the operation of their business, but the ordinance requirement is always met through the designation on a plan of "future" stalls. That is not the case here.) The issue of whether the retail parking formula is excessive was considered four years ago. No change was adopted at that time through the Planning Commission and staff recommended a change. More consideration of the ordinance itself will be given later in this report. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "The variance request is unique to this property g rent because of the building age and s it inherent functional 1 obsolescence. However, newer properties developed under the guidelines of the ordinance that serve a variety of higher traffic retail uses would not require such a variance. Older buildings developed along specific zoning and parking criteria may currently exist in this zoning classification, and due to changing market conditions rising to their functional obsolescence, may result in similar hardships with other existing structures." 4 -26 -90 -2- Application No. 90009 continued Staff: The applicant basically acknowledges that other existing buildings may face the same difficulties in findin g a suitable re -use as the building in question. The present situation is, therefore, not particularly unique. The applicant implies that the City should be flexible in enforcing its regulations in order to bring about re -use of existing buildings rather than so limit the possible uses that long -term vacancy and blight result. This argument is not totally invalid, but it should also be recognized that there are legitimate public concerns which must be addressed in the re -use of buildings. Parking is one of these concerns. The City should not accept just any use of a building to keep it occupied. The City should not accept just any use of a building to keep it occupied. In some cases it may PP be appropriate riate to even demolish an existing building because it is simply not appropriate to the site any longer. These are judgments which the City may affect by the enforcement of its regulations, but which are, for the most part, made by property owners. It should be clear that the City is not obliged to grant a variance to save a building from functional obsolescence. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "The hardship is specifically related to the ordinance. Without such a stringent parking requirement the need for the variance would not exist. However, the hardship in effect, was created 21 years ago when the market demanded smaller health facilities. Because of the changes over time health clubs bs have changed so dramatically that typical clubs are now 100,000 square feet or larger, as seen at the (new) Highway 100 Northwest Racquet and Swim Health Club. The small clubs that at one time thrived, have now become virtually extinct. This is evidenced by the many tenants they have had within the building that could not make ends meet financially. Because of these changes within the health club industry, and not because of any previous intentions, the referenced building, along with its parking facility, has become functionally obsolete as a health club. A parking variance, along with major interim renovations will make this obsolete facility functional again. To accommodate Jo Ann Fabrics within the strict letter of the current retail parking regulations would require the demolition of more than half the facility. This would create an inconceivable hardship economically as well as reduce the tax revenue the City currently enjoys. The existing parking is more than adequate for the proposed use of other potential low traffic generating retail tenants." 4-26-90 -3- Application No. 90009 continued Staff: The applicant argues that the hardship is created by stringent ordinance requirement and by changing market conditions which make the original use of the building obsolete. The hardship was not caused by the owner. To some extent this may be true. Nevertheless, the building and parking were created by the owner, not the Zoning Ordinance. The issue appears to be how to treat an existing building and site in light of the ordinance. Should a parking variance be granted? Should a parking ordinance amendment be adopted? Or should the owner be given direction to market the building perhaps for an office use which would comply with parking requirements? Our judgment, as we reported to the Commission in 1986, is that the retail parking formula which requires more parking per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for smaller buildings, appears to be excessive, at least for those buildings. We recommended an ordinance change at that time which would have given greater flexibility for the re -use of this and other small to medium sized commercial buildings. That change was recommended by the Planning Commission and received a 3 to 2 favorable vote from the City Council. However, a 4/5 vote was required to amend the Zoning Ordinance and the amendment, therefore, failed. If a variance is granted in this case, the City will probably be, in effect, amending its ordinance indirectly. We would prefer that a change in policy be indicated directly through an ordinance amendment, not indirectly through a variance. If the City Council does not amend the ordinance (and thus far it has not), it would probably be more proper to deny the variance and direct the property owner to seek out an office user for the property. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Applicant: "The variance will not be detrimental to public welfare and should enhance the neighborhood in that this vacant building will be occupied by a long term national tenant and that existing parking will be more than adequate at the facility. Additionally the adjacent retail uses are compatible with this proposed use and will reenforce the retail vitality of the area." Staff: We agree that a retail use of this building would be compatible with surrounding existing land uses. It would be a permitted use within the C2 zone. It would also probably live within the available parking on site. The issue is whether to apply the ordinance parking standard, to change it, or vary from it. Although an ordinance amendment has failed in the past, we believe it should at least be considered again as a possible route of resolving problems for this and other buildings. 4 -26 -90 -4- I Application No. 90009 continued We are not recommending a variance at this time. However, if the Commission is inclined to recommend a variance, we will attempt to develop language addressing the ordinance standards at the Commission's direction. We will also supply the Commission with information on an ordinance change for your review. 4 -26 -90 -5- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -7 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90010 Brooklyn United Methodist Church DEPARTMENT APPR 1 �.L Signature - title - Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x 1 Planning Commission Application No. 90010 is a request for site and building plan /special use permit approval to construct a combination of building additions totaling 4,454 sq. ft. and a greatly expanded on -site parking lot at the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its April 26,1990 study meeting. Minutes, information sheet, map of the area and site drawings are attached. Recommendation The Planning lannin Commission PP PP recommended approval of the application subject to the 17 conditions listed on pages 11 and 12 of the April 26 minutes. • fi I also invites representatives of the Robbinsdale, Anoka and Osseo districts to meet and compare notes and try to avoid surprises and duplication. , APPLICATION NOS. 90010 AND 90011 (Brooklyn United Methodist Church) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two regular items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to make some additions to the Brooklyn United Methodist Church to use the residence at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard for church ministries, and to expand the parking lot north of the church. The second application introduced was a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the existing Brooklyn United Methodist Church site and three residential lots to the north being acquired by the church for expansion of the parking lot. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports pertaining to these two applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 90010 and 90011 attached) . The Secretary also pointed out in his review of the site and building plan application that B612 curb and gutter would be required around all parking and driving areas in the parking lot and that this should assist drainage of the area. The Secretary also stated that any use of the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard should be accessory to the church use; that it should not be used for day care or by another organization without amending the special use permit. He noted that there is no indication that such a use is intended, but he wished to make that clear. The Secretary also recommended revisions to Condition No. 6 and Condition No. 15 of the staff report for Application No. 90010 by adding wording that those conditions would be subject to a final determination by the Building Official with respect to the requirements of the Building Code. The Secretary also stated that there was a need to evaluate parking needs for the church after the new lot is built and that it was not automatically certain that there would be excess land available on the off -site lot for subdivision in the future. The City Manager left at approximately 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Johnson asked how old the house was at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary responded that he was not sure. Commissioner Ainas stated that he would guess that it was a pre World War II house. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it was likely that the house would need significant improvements for it to meet code. The Secretary responded that he was not aware that any review of the house had been made. He stated that the Building Official would have to review the house in light of the building code and especially to review the requirement for handicapped access to the house. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Tom Twohig, the architect for the project, pointed out that the church has been at the site for 136 years and 4 -26 -90 -3- that it is deeply ingrained in the community. He noted that the church is expanding din and needs some me elbow room in which to 0 � g operate. te. He pointed out that the building has been added to a number of times and there are multiple levels in the building. He also pointed out that most of the parking for the church is across the street which is a safety problem. Mr Twohig s Y p g aid the church is working Habitat for Humanity g umanit to relocate the houses that it has urchas p ed along Noble Avenue North. He stated that the access location on Noble Avenue North will tend to cut down on the cut- through traffic between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue North. He added that he had brought lighting details and pointed out that there is a fourth light pole on the site plan that was not noted by staff in their report. He pointed out that it is located in the southeast area of the parking lot. Mr. Twohig then went on to review the plans for the building additions and modifications. He pointed out that the building will be entirely handicapped accessible when the improvements are complete. Chairperson Malecki asked for a response to the list of conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Twohig stated that he and Dave Anderson of the building committee had reviewed Condition Nos. 6 and 15 with staff earlier in the day and that he felt satisfied with the revision proposed by staff that would leave the matter of fire sprinklering the main building and handicapped access to the house up to a final determination by the Building Official. Chairperson Malecki asked about providing trees across the street on the off -site lot. Mr. Twohig responded that vegetation for that area was not shown on the survey and, therefore, was not included in the site plan. He pointed out that there a number of trees on the site and he hoped it would not be necessary to add as many as recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnson stated 'that he was concerned regarding the number of services at the church, the Sunday School attendance, the timing of the services and how all of these factors affected the flow of traffic into and out of the site. Mr. David Anderson, of the building committee at Brooklyn United Methodist Church, responded to this concern. Regarding the services, he stated that the church is experiencing row th in activit g Y as well as in attendance. He stated that the church would like to have expanded the sanctuary, but that there were significant building constraints in doing o. g He stated that another way of adding seats is to add a third service which the church has done. He stated that the church has had trouble getting the first service out before the second service arrives and that this has led to some traffic congestion. He stated that the church may space the first and second services further apart in order to allow the parking lot to be vacated and reduce the traffic problem. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 90010 and 90011) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on 4 -26 -90 -4- the special use permit for the church expansion and the use of the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard and also on the preliminary plat proposed by the church. She asked whether anyone present wished to comment. Mr. Mike Hoffman, of 4715 Wingard Lane, then addressed the Commission at some length and reviewed some of the concerns contained in a letter addressed to the Commission on April 10. He stated that the concerns include the fence and grade of the land relative to their properties. He stated that the residents to the north wanted a buffer zone which they would maintain. He stated that the fencing and landscaping would affect their property values. He stated that he has talked to realtors and that they say the expansion of the church parking lot will put a ceiling on their property values in the future. Mr. Hoffman stated that the plan that they were shown indicated pea rock between the church fence and the residents' fences and that the residents preferred sod and trees between the two fences. He also stated that the residents want a 10' high fence to be placed 15' from their property line. He also stated that the fence should be built low to the ground so that litter and children could not get through underneath the fence. He stated that placing the church fence 5' from the residents' fences would allow for pedestrian traffic through that area. He expressed concern for security if this area were allowed to exist. Mr. Hoffman stated that the residents were concerned about lighting for security. He encouraged the use of parking lot lights that would face the church and would not spill over onto the residents' property. Regarding the dumpster location, he stated that they were concerned regarding odors coming from the dumpsters, especially during the summer when winds would tend to be from the south and southwest. He concluded by stating that the property owners along Wingard Lane are willing to sell their houses to the church. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Hoffman whether the residents had been contacted by the church during the past two years while this project has been planned. Mr. Hoffman stated that the first contact was approximately three weeks ago. Commissioner Johnson asked whether their prime concern was with on- street parking. Mr. Hoffman agreed that that was a concern. He pointed out that there is refuse discarded from cars and that they sometimes park on the grass. He also stated that when cars are parked on both sides of Wingard Lane, there is a narrow channel to drive in. Chairperson Malecki noted that those present had heard the staff report. She stated that it seemed that some of the requests made by the neighbors were impractical. Mr. Hoffman asked that the buffer area required along the north side of the parking lot be incorporated into their yards. The Secretary pointed out problems 4 -26 -90 -5- with fences being too close to each other. The Secretary stated that it is best for the property owner to maintain his own property. He stated that there would be a need for someone to maintain the area between the fences. Mr. Hoffman asked who would be responsible for an injury if it were to occur in the area between the fences. The Secretary stated that if the area belonged to the church, it would probably be their responsibility if there was negligence involved. He stated that, if the neighbors were opposed to putting the fences 5' apart, he would recommend that the new fence for the church be put along the property line. Mr. Wladymyr (Wally) Szulga, of 4707 Wingard Lane, expressed concern about problems with activity at the church, including unsafe conditions and fence maintenance problems. Mr. Hoffman added that the residents were concerned that lights would shine through the fence. The Secretary pointed out that the fence would be an opaque fence, made of board -on -board construction. Mr. Hoffman stated that the residents are willing to maintain the buffer area, that they would take down their own rear fences and tie their side fences into the new church fence. The Planner expressed concern about the possibility of an adverse possession claim being made someday in the future. He stated that if the residents close off the property and include it in their own lots and maintain it with the church's knowledge, that after 15 years an adverse possession claim might be filed. He recommended that the Commission not accept this arrangement to avoid these problems in the future. Commissioner Ainas stated that doing what Mr. Hoffman desired would put a legal cloud on the transfer of property in the future. Mr. Hoffman stated that he was willing to investigate the legality of his idea. Commissioner Bernards noted that the application would still have to go before the City Council and he asked whether the legality of the buffer area being maintained by the residents to the north could be investigated between now and then. The Secretary stated that it wasn't so much a question of whether it could be done legally as to whether it was advisable. He stated that it would open up a number of complications. He stated that, if the alleyway between the fences is undesirable to the residents, he would suggest that the fence be moved to the property line to eliminate this area. Commissioner Holmes agreed that the church may not want others maintaining its property if they are responsible. Mr. Dave Anderson, of the building committee for the church, stated that the church wanted to maintain its own fence and land. The Planner pointed out that one reason for the gap between the fences was so that there would not be two fences side by side. He stated that if the residents along Wingard Lane are willing to take down the back sides of their fences, he would suggest that the fence be placed along the property line and both parties can maintain the land up to the fence. Mr. David Anderson stated that he was concerned about maintenance of the fence and that the 5' area between fences would allow the church to get to the other side of the fence to maintain it. 4 -26 -90 -6- Mrs. Eleanore Maegi, of 4721 Wingard Lane, pointed out that she had lived in the area for many years and that she was beginning to feel crowded out. She stated that her main objection was to the location of the dumpster. She pointed out that she is allergic to insect bites and has to carry her own safety kit. She stated that she talked to Pastor Erikson and that he had told her that the dumpster would stay next to the church. Mrs. Maegi also stated that drainage runs onto their property now and that their lot is lower than the area where the parking lot would be. She stated that if this is not corrected, the drainage problem will get worse. The Secretary pointed out that the parking lot would be bounded by curb and gutter and that it would be pitched to drain toward a catch basin in the middle of the lot. This would be away from her property. Mrs. Maegi expressed her concern about snow melting on the side of the parking lot. The Secretary pointed out that a berm would be constructed approximately in the middle of the buffer area and that this would cause drainage of snow on the church side of the fence to be back toward the parking lot. Mrs. Maegi stated that she would like the fence 15' away from their property line. She stated that she felt she had a problem with the dumpster and that the fence was too close. She stated that they would have a harder time selling their house with the development as proposed. Mr. David Anderson then addressed the Commission regarding some of these concerns. He stated that the church had discussed the fence with the neighbors before submitting the plans. He also pointed out that the discussion between Mrs. Maegi and Pastor Erikson regarding the dumpster was three years ago and that plans have changed since then because the church has acquired more houses. He stated the drainage in the area will be improved. Mr. Anderson also pointed out that the two houses along Noble which the church has acquired are being donated to Habitat for Humanity, not sold. Mr. Anderson stated that the parking lot expansion was part of a ten year plan and that the church would not expand further before at least the year 2000. He stated that the church had talked to the residents along Wingard, that one resident was unable to talk with them and that one was unwilling. Mr. Anderson also pointed out that the total cost of the construction project for the church was $1.2 million and that this was a lot of money for only a 4,400 sq. ft. addition to the building. He also pointed out that the additions to the building would make the church handicapped accessible throughout. Regarding cut - through traffic, Mr. Anderson stated that the church is trying to deal with that in its proposed parking lot plan. He stated that the cut - through traffic is a result of closing the intersection of Wingard Lane and Brooklyn Boulevard. Regarding the residents request for Blue Spruce trees, he stated that he did not have a problem with them, but that he did not think they would be viable in the northerly greenstrip which would not be wide enough for mature Spruce trees. Regarding the possibility of selling all or part of the off -site lot to Edina Realty, Mr. Anderson stated that there have been no 4 -26 -90 -7- discussions regarding that to this point. He stated that the church's long term plan is to put all parking for the church on- site and that the off -site lot might be discarded in the future. Regarding parking on Noble Avenue, he stated that the church would agree to eliminate parking on the west side of Noble to alleviate sight lines for cars coming out of the parking lot. But he recommended continuing to allow parking on the east side of Noble. He stated that the church's parking lot would accommodate parking on -site 49 weeks out of the year, but Easter and Christmas services would probably still need some on- street parking. Mr. Anderson also stated that the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard was built in about 1950. He stated that the house is in excellent condition. He stated that the church was making handicapped bathrooms and access possible in the main building and did not feel that it would be feasible to make these modifications to the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. Regarding the dumpster location, Mr. Anderson stated that the church is willing to put the dumpster a little further away, but he pointed out that the trash would be in bags and that the dumpster could certainly have a lid. He also pointed out that there would be an enclosure around the dumpster as well as a fence along the north side of the property. He stated that the church did not want the dumpster to be right next to the church or along Brooklyn Boulevard, but that it should be out of sight. Chairperson Malecki asked how deep the v cuts were in the fence. Mr. Tom Twohig stated that they would be about 4 1/2 feet deep and 12 feet wide. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the church intended to sprinkle the area between the fences. Mr. Anderson responded that that was not planned at this time, that the church would do manual sprinkling. Mr. Anderson stated that the church wanted to put rock on the parking lot side of the fence, but that they were willing to put sod on the side toward the residences. The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance requires that the buffer be a green area and that it should, therefore, be sodded entirely. Mr. Wally Szulga, of 4707 Wingard Lane, asked who he should sue when his basement floods, the City, or the church. Mr. Lutgen, of 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard, expressed concern about noise from the traffic. He stated that the changes proposed by the church would accelerate the problem of noise. He also stated that as property values dropped for the homes along Wingard Lane, it would be to the advantage of the church in acquiring those homes. He asked what would happen to the north side of Wingard Lane in the future when the church eventually expands up to Wingard Lane. He asked why he should upgrade his house if the houses across the street are going to go downhill. He also stated that he had never been approached by the church regarding the expansion project. Mr. Lutgen also expressed concerns regarding pedestrian traffic, safety problems on Noble and the possibility of traffic backing up in Brooklyn Boulevard trying to get into the church. 4 -26 -90 _g_ Mr. Bruce Ericson, the senior pastor for Brooklyn United Methodist Church then addressed the Commission. He reviewed some of the past history of the church and the area along Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble. He pointed out that there has been tremendous growth in the community and of the church since the church began 136 years ago. He stated that the church was not here to make problems worse, but that it was trying to make problems go away. He pointed out that the church bought the homes along Noble and Brooklyn Boulevard at the highest value determined by realtors evaluating the properties. He pointed out that it would cost the church $5,000 for each parking space that it was providing. He pointed out that the members of the church are not rich, but blue collar people that live in the area. He expressed regrets about the problem with the fence at the off -site lot, but cited the recommendation of a carpenter that there was not much that could be done until the ground thawed. Pastor Ericson also stated that it would be possible to move the dumpster to another location. He stated that he did not want to cause any health problems for his neighbors. Pastor Erikson pointed out that some neighbors in the area are members of the church and that some neighbors have fears, some of which are real and some of which are silly. He stated that the church did not want to make things tough for the neighbors. He pointed out, however, that the church has to deal with the growth of its congregation with the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard in the past and with the traffic that results from people moving into the area. Mrs. Eleanore Maegi stated that it was accidents on Wingard Lane, one of which was fatal, which caused the closing of Wingard Lane. She then showed the Planning Commission a picture of her property. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else wished to comment regarding the applications. Hearing no one she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing on Application Nos. 90010 and 90011. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Johnson stated that it should be possible to move the dumpster. The Secretary concurred, noting that the church appeared willing to move the dumpster. He stated that this should not be a big problem. Commissioner Bernards asked about closing off the 5' area between the church fence and the residents' fences. The Secretary asked that the Planning Commission give direction regarding the fence issue. He stated that he felt there would be problems if maintenance of this area were left to others besides the property owner. Commissioner Holmes stated that he felt there could be pedestrian traffic through the area if it were not closed 4 -26 -90 -9- off. He stated that he presumed that the 10' high fence request was out of the question. The Secretary pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6' high fence to screen parking lots from residential property. He stated that a fence is generally better at providing effective screening on a year round basis than a hedge would be. He pointed out that the purpose of the fence was to screen out cars, not the church. There was a brief discussion regarding the type of trees requested by the neighbors. Commissioner Johnson stated Blue Spruce get to be bad news after awhile. Commissioner Holmes noted the problems on Noble from the church and asked whether there had been accidents in the area. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of the accident rate for that location, but he added that there is probably danger in crossing the street since it is a collector street. The Secretary pointed out that the parking requirement for the church is based on sanctuary seating. He stated that this works in most cases, but that when classes are going on at the same time as church services, there may be problems. There is also a problem if services overlap, or there is not sufficient time between services. The Secretary stated that what the church is doing is basically an improvement to the area by providing more on -site parking. He pointed out that businesses in the City and other uses have to have parking on their own site. He noted that it is not illegal to park on the street, but that on- street parking may be evaluated by the City if there is a safety concern and can be restricted, forcing parking to be on the church property only. Commissioner Holmes commented on the noise problem. He stated that he could see there will be an increase in noise in the area, but that the fence should help the noise issue. The Secretary stated that if the Commission is convinced that a higher fence will address noise problems, it could require a higher fence. He stated, however, that most of the noise in the area is coming from Brooklyn Boulevard, not from the church parking lot. He also pointed out that even though existing trees may tend to ameliorate noise problems, any property owner has a right to cut down trees on their property. Chairperson Malecki asked where the decision to put the fence where it was proposed came from. The Secretary stated that it may have come to some extent from the staff's recommendation as it was pointed out to the representative of the church what maintenance problems would exist with the fence. He stated that shrubs could also be used for screening, but it would take 10 years to become effective screening, whereas fences are effective immediately. Chairperson Malecki asked the Planning Commission for their opinions on the no man's land between the church's fence and the residents' fences. Commissioner Ainas recommended leaving the proposed fence as it is shown on the plans and that the area be 4 -26 -90 -10- closed off at either end. Commissioner Bernards also recommended closing the area off. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that the grass on the north side of the fence would not be watered and that it would die. Commissioner Bernards stated that he did not see a problem with the area if there was a gate to prevent pedestrian traffic through it. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the church was being very accommodating in its plans. She also endorsed the idea of a gate. She recommended allowing parking on- street for a year to see how the new parking lot functioned. She concluded by saying that she felt the plan was very appropriate. Commissioner Johnson encouraged the church to try to police the litter problem more from cars parking on Wingard Lane. The Secretary pointed out that parking lot screening across Noble Avenue North is also required under the Zoning Ordinance and recommended that the fence be continued at a 4' height along Noble to screen the lot from across the street. Commissioner Johnson stated that he did not like the proposed arrangement with two fences, one for the church and one for the private residents. He stated that the no man's land between the fences does not make sense to him. He recommended to the City Council that the two groups of people reach a compromise with a single fence. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90010 (Brooklyn United Methodist Church Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 90010, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted for a church and accessory uses. The use may not be altered or expanded beyond this specific approval without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits and prior to construction of the new parking lot. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4 -26 -90 -11- i 6. Subject to a final determination by the Building Official with regard to applicable codes, the building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance agreement. 10. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Fire hydrants shall be installed and fire lanes designated in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Chief. 13. The barrier across the access to the off -site parking lot from Brooklyn Boulevard shall be improved in accordance with recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 14. The plans shall be modified, prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate: a) the addition of at least four shade trees in the greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard and the addition of two trees in the greenstrip along Noble Avenue North. b) the addition of a light pole at the entrance off Noble Avenue North and the provision of lighting details including height and type of fixture and a photometric plan giving light intensities near property lines. C) The extension of a 4' high fence within the Noble Avenue North greenstrip to screen the parking lot north of the church from residences across Noble. 4 -26 -90 -12- 15. Subject to a final determination by the Building Official with respect to the requirements of the Building Code, the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard shall be provided with handicapped access and bathroom facilities. The use of the house shall only be for accessory church ministry purposes such as adult and youth meetings and education classes. No other use by a nonchurch organization is acknowledged with this approval. 16. The wood fence along the east side of the off -site parking lot shall be repaired on or before May 5, 1990 as ordered by the Building Inspector. 17. If there are two fences, one belonging to the church and another belonging to residents abutting Wingard Lane, access to the area between the fences shall be closed off with a lockable gate at both ends. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the conditions should address relocation of the dumpster. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt, based on the statements from the church, that that matter would be addressed without a condition. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90011 (Brooklyn United Methodist Church) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90011, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The requirement qu nt to plat the parcels comprising the off - site lot is hereby waived. However, the church shall file a legal encumbrance with the title to the property at the County which will bind the use of the off -site parking lot to the principal site of the church. Said encumbrance shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to filing. The filing of the encumbrance shall be concurrent with or prior to the filing of the plat at the County. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 4 -26 -90 -13- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90010 Applicant: Brooklyn United Methodist Church Location: 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a combination of building additions totaling 4,454 sq. ft. and a greatly expanded on -site parking lot at the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard. Also proposed is the conversion of a single - family home at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard to use for church ministries. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by Noble Avenue North on the east and south, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, and by single - family homes facing Wingard Lane on the north. The church has purchased, or agreed to purchase, the homes at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard, 7207 Brooklyn Boulevard and 7215 Noble Avenue North. The two homes along Noble Avenue North would be removed and a new parking lot would be installed on that land and on a portion of the site where the remaining house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard is located. The entire area is to be replatted into a single parcel under Application No. 90011. There is a also an off -site parking lot serving the church at the southeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue North. No significant changes are proposed for that site under this application. Churches are allowed by special use permit in the R1 zone, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained by a collector of arterial street. In this case, Brooklyn Boulevard is an arterial street and Noble is a collector. Access Parking The major site change proposed by the plans is the addition of an 88 stall parking lot north of and contiguous to the church, including five (5) required handicapped stalls near what is to become a major entrance on the north side of the building. In addition to the 88 stalls on the new lot north of the church, there are 150 existing stalls on the off -site lot. Total off - street parking available to the church would increase from 168 spaces at present (there are presently 18 stalls next to the building) to 238 spaces, an increase of 70 spaces. The parking requirement for churches contained in the Zoning Ordinance is one stall for every three seats. The seating capacity of the sanctuary for Brooklyn United Methodist Church is estimated at 491. The parking requirement is, therefore, at least 164 spaces. No expansion of the sanctuary is proposed at this time, but we are aware of an existing demand for on- street parking in the neighborhood. The proposed additional parking should help alleviate some of this on- street parking problem, but we are not certain that it will be eliminated, especially if some on- street parking areas remain more convenient than some off - street parking areas. 4 -26 -90 _1_ Application No. 90010 continued Staff have received a letter (attached) from residents along Wingard Lane, abutting the expanded church site. One request made by those residents is that Noble Avenue North and Wingard Lane be posted "No parking during church service." The City's Administrative Traffic Committee has considered the plan and the request by the neighbors to limit on- street parking. They have indicated that, if a majority of the property owners in the area petition for a limitation on on- street parking, the City will post the area for at least a year and re- evaluate at that time if property owners change their minds. The elimination of on- street parking during church services in this neighborhood would certainly force the church to provide adequate off - street parking and perhaps to reschedule services so that there is less overlap and more availability of parking. This issue should be explored with the applicant and the neighbors during the public hearing. As to access, staff and the applicant's architect have worked on this issue at some length. At present, there is one access on Brooklyn Boulevard and one on Noble Avenue North for the church. In addition, the three homes all have accesses. The proposed plan calls for widening the existing access drive off Brooklyn Boulevard to 24' in width and closing the driveway to the residence at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. Hennepin County has indicated this is acceptable to them. Along Noble Avenue North, the access drive for the church will be moved northward approximately 100' to an area about in the middle of the parking lot. The driveways for the existing residences will, of course, be eliminated. The net result is that three access drives will be eliminated off busy streets. We regard this as an improvement. One major concern of Hennepin County and of City staff is the possibility for cut - through traffic through the church site between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue North. This is an existing problem. The proposed parking lot layout with a new access on Noble approximately 100' north of the existing driveway will be less convenient for cars to move through the lot to shortcut between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble, though it will still allow access from both streets. Cut - through traffic certainly will not be eliminated, but we regard the proposed access arrangement as an improvement. The Director of Public Works has also expressed concern over the safety of the present access to the off -site lot from Brooklyn Boulevard. A better barrier needs to be placed in front of this driveway during weekdays to clearly mark that it is closed to through traffic. Landscaping The proposed plan calls for new landscaping in and around the new parking lot. Nothing is really proposed around the church building (where there are a number of existing mature trees) or around the 4 -26 -90 -2- Application No. 90010 continued existing off -site lot. The plan calls for 3 new Greenspire Littleleaf Lindens, 3 Littleleaf Lindens and 3 Norway Maples. In addition, the plan calls for 7 Red Splendor Crabapple, 3 Spring Snow Crabapple, a Sugar Maple, and a Summit Green Ash. Five Crabs are proposed near the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard and others are shown near the church and the access off Noble. Shade trees are indicated in perimeter green areas and in parking lot islands. The total point value of existing and proposed plantings is at least 241 points. This works out to about 73 points per acre for the church property. Churches are not really covered in the landscape point system, but 73 points per acre is roughly comparable to the light industrial requirement. The neighbors along Wingard Lane have called for Spruce trees adjacent to their property. While some trees could be added in the 15' wide northerly greenstrip buffer, we feel that more landscaping would probably be appropriate on the off -site lot. No plantings are documented on the site and the church seems to feel that that portion of their property is not relevant to this application. However, we would recommend that at least four shade trees be added in the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip, at approximately 40' on center. A couple trees could also be added along Noble Avenue North. An important aspect of the proposed plans is the provision of a 6' high, board on board, wood fence within the northerly greenstrip. The fence is proposed about 5' off the north property line with triangular sections every so often to add stability. Some of the residents along Wingard already have fences. Placing the fence on the property line might, therefore, create an unmaintained area between fences. A 5' separation should at least be adequate room for someone to get between with a mower. The property owners to the north have recommended that the fence be placed right next to the parking lot with the 15' buffer on their side and maintained by them. We do not feel this is an appropriate arrangement. Maintenance of church property should be by the church and green area between the parking lot and the fence is necessary for aesthetics, landscape plantings, and snow storage. The neighbors have also called for a 10' high fence. However, this would exceed what is required by ordinance (6 and would, we feel, be an imposing structure, difficult to maintain. The purpose of the screening device is to screen out cars in the parking lot, not the church. We would, therefore, recommend acceptance of the size and location of the fence as proposed. Grading, Drainage and Utilities The land on which the proposed, new parking lot is to be constructed is fairly flat. One catch basin in the middle of the lot is proposed to collect most of the runoff. It will be connected by storm sewer to another catch basin in the southeast 4 -26 -90 -3- Application No. 90010 continued corner of the lot and ultimately to City storm sewer in Noble Avenue North. The plan proposes a modest 1' high berm in the northerly buffer area following along the same general location as the fence. The purpose of the berm is to insure that any snow stored in the greenstrip area drains back into the parking lot and not into the neighboring residential lots. Drainage is also a concern of the neighbors and we feel the plan is adequate in this respect. Building The building additions are in various locations. New classrooms in the lower level and the pastor's offices in the upper level are proposed on the north side of the building. A new narthex and vestibule will be added between the nursery wing adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard and the main part of the building. This is where a new major entrance will be established near the new north parking lot. A canopy is proposed to cover the walk in front of the building. In addition, there is to be a minor addition to the existing narthex toward Brooklyn Boulevard which will allow for a link up with the new narthex. Finally, there is to be an expansion of the Fellowship Hall into an open courtyard area in the middle of the building. This expansion area will have skylights above. The exterior treatment is to be a face brick to matching the existing exterior. The architect has also indicated that the church intends to fire - sprinkler the building. This will be a significant improvement. Liahting/Trash The plan calls for one light pole in the northerly greenstrip, one behind the church home at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard, and one on the south side of the entrance drive off Brooklyn Boulevard, just west of the new entrance canopy. No specifications have been provided yet on the size of the poles, or wattage of the fixtures. The lighting appears somewhat sparse to us. We would recommend the addition of at least one pole toward the southeast corner of the new lot and /or one at the Noble Avenue North entrance. The proposed dumpster location is just off the parking lot behind the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. A screened enclosure with a gate is proposed. The neighbors on Wingard Lane have requested that the dumpster be placed away from their residences. The proposed location will be about 18' from the north lot line. It will be closer to the church house than to adjacent residences, but, on the scale of the entire site, is fairly close to the neighboring residences. The church does not want to put the dumpster right next to the church. The location proposed is generally out of sight and is acceptable to staff. 4 -26 -90 -4- Application No. 90010 continued Use of House at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard Staff have requested from the applicant a statement as to the intended use of the house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. David Anderson of the church building committee has responded with a brief letter (attached). In it, he states that the church may put the house to a variety of uses, including adult and youth meetings and adult education classes. He notes that youth will not use the house without adult supervision. This appears to pose no problem. Parking associated with the house will be available in the adjoining parking lot. The separate driveway serving the residence will be closed. Special Use Standards As a special use in the R1 zone, the church and any expansion is subject to the standards contained in Section 35 -220, Subsection 2 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Regarding standard (a) , we do not believe the expanded church will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. As to standard (b) , the expanded church and parking lot should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor should it adversely affect property values in the neighborhood. As to standard (c) the church expansion and parking lot should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. Finally, pertaining to standard (d) , the new parking spaces constructed by the church should reduce traffic congestion in the public streets by accommodating more church parking off - street, on their own property. In addition, the proposed access arrangement should somewhat discourage (though it will not eliminate) cut - through traffic between Noble and Brooklyn Boulevard. The parking problems in the neighborhood associated with the church will be reduced, if not eliminated, by the provision of more off - street parking. At the same time, the additions ro osed to t P P he church should not generate significant additional traffic. Therefore, the net effect should be a reduction in parking problems benefitting the neighborhood as well as the church. Recommendation Altogether, the proposal appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted for a church and accessory uses. The use may not be altered or expanded beyond this specific approval without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4 -26 -90 -5- Application No. 90010 continued 3. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits and prior to construction of the new parking lot. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of J P the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance agreement. 10. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to issuance of permits. 11. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Fire hydrants shall be Y installed and fire lanes designated in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Chief. 13. The barrier across the access to the off -site parking lot from Brooklyn Boulevard shall be improved in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 14. The plans shall be modified, prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate: a) the addition of at least four shade trees in the greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard and the addition of two trees in the greenstrip along Noble Avenue North. 4 -26 -9 0 -6- Application No. 90010 continued b the addition of a light pole at the entrance off Noble Avenue North and the provision of lighting details including height and type of fixture and a photometric plan giving light intensities near property lines. 15. The house at 7204 Brooklyn Boulevard shall be provided with handicapped access and bathroom facilities as required by the Handicapped Code. 16. The wood fence along the east side of the off -site parking lot shall be repaired on or before May 5, 1990 as ordered by the Building Inspector. 4 -26 -90 -7- April 19, 1990 Via Fax April 20, 1990, to: Gary Shallcross Mr. Gary Shallcross, Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Brooklyn United nited Methodist Church Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Gary: Per your request, this letter is to advise the city how we intend to use the white house we own on Brooklyn Boulevard. While this house is presently occupied by residents, we expect to use it for church purposes by October, 1990. We have studied various needs within our congregation and find that it will likely be utilized for both adult and youth meetings, as well as adult education classes. Further, it is not intended to be used by youth without adult supervision. We feel that by having multiple functions as opposed to exclusive use in the house, it will then be kept better maintained and controlled. Our studies are not yet complete on the utilization of this house, so exact programming is not yet been finalized. However, we believe that it will be used as discussed in this letter. Very — Zt u ►y yours, I David K. Anderson, AIA Chairman, Building Committee Brooklyn United Methodist Church DKA:rm cc: Bruce Erickson Dee Lere " misc2 /18 April 10, 1990 The Planning Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Sir: We homeowners on Wingard Lane, Brooklyn Center, have met to discuss the proposed changes sought by the Brooklyn United Methodist Church Council in regards to a new parking lot adjacent to our homestead properties. Since this.proposed change will effect our property values and the esthetic value of our neighborhood, we have deemed the following as major concerns to us and recommend the following. 1. PARKING LOT ON C STRUCTION a) Grade to drain water away from our property line. b) To meet city codes and not to overflow in heavy rain. c) Cement curb along perimeter of parking lot. d) Cement or aggregate from curb to extend underneath for weed control. 2. BUFFER ZONE AND LANDSCAPING a) 15' buffer between properties. b) To be sodded. c) Blue spruce trees. d) Property easement (homeowners to maintain buffer zone). 3. FENCE a) 10' high fence. b) 15' Away from our ro ert lines. P P Y c) Well built and decorative construction which is close to the ground (Maintenance Agreement for Fence). 4. LIGHTING a) Sufficient lighting along property owners perimeter in direction of parking lot. For crime deterrent and safety. 5. STREET SIDE PARKING a) No parking during church services on Wingard Lane and Noble (posted both sides of street). Page 2 April 10, 1990 6. PARKING LOT REGULATIONS a) City ordinance regulations in regards to non running or abandoned vehicles. b) Snow removal (snow not be piled up against or close to buffer zone). 7. DUMPSTER a) Location to be away from homeowners. 8. BUY OUT a) Those of us directly adjacent to the proposed parking lot would be open to an offer to purchase our homes at a fair market price and eliminate a need for the buffer zone. Sincerely Yours, 7221 Noble Ave. No. Brooklyn Center, MN ay'Marketon 7221 Noble Ave. No. Brooklyn Center, MN Geraldine Mar eton Wlady r z ga 4707 Wingard Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 7, a a 4707 Wingard Lane Brooklyn Center, MN wig 4715 Wingard Lane Brooklyn Center, MN Mike Hoffman 4715 Wingard Lane Brooklyn Center, MN athry Ho an n Ae''ti &4-" -e 4721 Wingard Lane Brooklyn Center, MN B ernhard Meagi L2yno't 4721 Wingard Lane Brooklyn Center, MN Eleonore Meagi 7 L� J 4727 Wingard Lane Brooklyn Center, MN nn Elms DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 320 Washington Ave. South -- HEINEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 -8468 Phone: (612) 935 -3381 Mr. Sy Knapp October 16, 1989 Director of Public Works 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: RE: Proposed Plat - Brooklyn United Methodist Church CSAH 152, Northeast quadrant of Noble Avenue No. Section 28, Township 119, Range 21 Hennepin County Plat No. 1783 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - No additional right of way required by Hennepin County at this time along this segment of CSAH 152. - To help limit the number of access points to heavily travelled CSAH 152, Hennepin County supports the closure of the driveway from 7204 Brooklyn Blvd. to CSAH 152. - The widening of the driveway from CSAH 152 to the church parking lot is acceptable to Hennepin County. However, we see the potential of this full access driveway being used as a shortcut to Noble Ave. No. - The house driveway closure and the church driveway widening require an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Operations Division for entrance permit forms. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Operations Division for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Si erely, zz'� David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning DWS/LDW:lw HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportuntty employer 'll 1 • 1 MM Lwwp Aw • /one► �� i� % %�� %� %1 -1■� mm mm all Milani mm mm Im • / E 1 8 It m n „ rt1 • :K/ K/Y ,71K / " • %.� \ G A E <te.rnL W Pryfin 1 y. C`,. I �r / , Vii • _ = .'� ... t \ 1 r l deTL'.'1.�.,. i._C � Y' 1 A ._._ -- — � i n . I. � . .. l � , � . t . yea{/ w•. IL • � ^� 1 , ) ,r Pfa R1flt11t• K1. 1MO •va .cw• a _ — ,aL ;- •uL•Da eorY/•a/ 1•,wl ♦t t. t t u lu r i er, ele i , r.+i•loi..u• w.tu IN » �Ilew ,�v u i D o )- ' I I 1 I tla4 t�wp Y \DN IJ• .. f NM1L Y D ) 1 I L ;DY w la a nuuoc u.v.ms K o L 1 � •uwYw tullreYY � • taµ .. NIt _ wnHrT �uc�l Lsl c+L Mo _I -- � 1 _ ■um.a v.a• Iw 7 I� � Ylttt •tOU11tD 1. C • .. , 1/'I NwCIt u � • i � � ' t wloc.r w.ct• 3 w •a�r.I .M I I a IMif { '>1 HIy '91un alW,JO •w_Ylwnow •nrh j C lf fra hl: 9al�n WtnN� ,� w1 .7DrI. oa1f.11/ � T �.'•••. - ...1/..r yii � aahl tM N•M^ .o wlm Ywrar7 # 4 .1,,. IMwy W/h Ol tall Eli +..i4 lw- I I E" 1.1 1 111111 4. • • � 'fMi fuc) 9a! H lLV, Eu - , � "+ M\ 1h MM/ YN TfOL O r`. vW 1.f1 f•IY lfa1M. �. w or Yh/ Dr .. - I I � . - . i • Nli/ I'0.11i[*N � If•'r/ ± - -_ _ -- - �` I 1 I � 1 1N Ey:YE F .r1 wrw 1m f oYYNn� 1 I �� 1 IIY1 V H 111 1 i , ,f t � �I• wv1 _/oYlploI MORI. o I I , - I _ � • -~ 1 Irsv ' .,,. :loop ITOT - taunl•u w1 I t cMMNY �� ' V • 1+'M , 1 � : , 1+111.1 W ; " � `3 �� - �,.�`` .lr - f��e .l,la --- __ l• .T - � _ •.S+nf fn 1` �' , ,.,a .. y,'Z �� `_ /� .nlEl! 3 1 . j Ml f 1 1 n I „� v �,n. 1 � . •�_ .{ ( ' ,� d ��• —r -'.. \ \ ..-, � / *' / n was I `J �� I ', y 3 � ' '+.a, G w�.- k �L ry 1 ��1`'LI. �I..ti ,...`' r•n,'a, «. � ', /, / \ �- • Mfr - I s, - -- -- — .. ,.1 r , �' 1 1 �/' f4• \ r�� ~mss, �' � -.; �C,� F^�•�Y. l +mLLe �,�"� 4 �.y craw wm � � 7 �I.i \ M• � �� h ti !y ' \Xj ' �� .'7 k i p \ +( \ .v1 SS i rf- ' ef•,1 N % / r • n O N ; gd O , a eouuoor [ Ca•n.00r p � _ , ��ai a r d� 4 rot In f 1 � 11 O�t? J �1 �e� pryu. {yaar eae•r•r10 I� - `ni.�t�� raor•rw•. DOOM ra � Cu.MOOy kot r` �7c i[iO rorar , t k7i r.°� I OHI..00r Cu .1.0or � c .Hoot I ' �� 1111 1117 �iL - L:1S1 , I n � t wuxoor I » z w..aoor ...00r O GO .... ,.0 .. 14 n.n c1t 1 , gF ew•.,r. wrw.r 3 � : . M.".. —A .n. � TOl•a tl�..l N w na. __� wnr �n aaunra ..ue a cy 1w a \ , z n do I � i E eL� �� 1 �� + \' _—� •—�, it �Ki _ � � 'f �� J i EMI. .°= ;!�u -n ar_'"'.�' -'1 — ��t � rte. • - - - - -- I �� . � +` I watxoa ':io � � r "'G r • ��r'uo � � � wts.00i -- j G _ �C t%� � G _ p c k rr ryyr��7 ty ►y tt +S • �� l ~� uunxo r•u. � 3 e m � R � 3�m p o � e as 7;u. - -�- --- -'-- ------- -'---- i�B 9 F L e iuT- .o. r -• i ll iC I _i I [ -1 I� r ..r ...r.r i R� E ialerl•r� ee• � uunea 3 i = /il eeerY eur•noe �-- N e•Na . 1. •' . 1'.�. F4 n Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro - visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub - ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -7 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90011 - Brooklyn United Methodist Church DEPARTMENT APPRO Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached __) Planning Commission Application No. 90011 is a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the existing Brooklyn United Methodist Church site and three adjacent residential parcels in order to accommodate a church expansion and new parking lot north of the church. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its April 26, 1990 study meeting. Minutes, information sheet, map of the area and site drawing are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application subject to the three conditions listed on page 13 of the April 26 minutes. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90011 Applicant: Brooklyn United Methodist Church Location: 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the existing Brooklyn United Methodist Church site and three adjacent residential parcels in order to accommodate a church expansion and new parking lot north of the church. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by single - family homes which face Wingard Lane, on the east and south by Noble Avenue North, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Under Section 35 -540 of the Zoning Ordinance, "multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development use and which are under common ownership shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey." In the present case, the four existing parcels will be under ownership and use of the church and, thus, the replatting is required. The proposed plat calls for a single parcel, to be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn United Methodist Church Addition. The lot area is 112,800 sq. ft. or 2.59 acres. The plat proposes drainage and utility easements of 5' in width along the north, interior property line and 10 in width adjacent to Noble Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. This conforms with ordinance requirements. There is also an existing 6' wide sidewalk easement along Brooklyn Boulevard. The requirement to combine adjacent parcels into a single lot would also normally apply to the off -site parking lot across Noble Avenue North which serves the church site. The parking lot site is composed of seven parcels plus some old vacated Noble Avenue North right -of -way. We have discussed the platting requirement with representatives of the church and they have indicated an interest in possibly subdividing off a portion of the off -site parking lot site in the next few years. They have asked that the platting requirement be deferred until that time. With the development of additional parking adjacent to the church, there will be some parking surplus, at least based on the sanctuary seating requirement. That parking surplus translates into a land surplus which could be subdivided off. Staff have indicated a willingness to defer the platting requirement for the off -site lot on condition that the church file a legal encumbrance binding the use of the off -site lot the church site. Such an encumbrance is required by Section 35- 701.3f of the Zoning Ordinance. It would be amended when a future subdivision would take place. Given such an encumbrance, we believe the platting requirement for the off -site lot can be waived. 4 -26 -90 _1_ Application No. 90011 continued In general, the ro osed plat p p p appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The requirement to plat the parcels comprising the off - site lot is hereby waived. However, the church shall file a legal encumbrance with the title to the property at the County which will bind the use of the off -site parking lot to the principal site of the church. Said encumbrance shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to filing. The filing of the encumbrance shall be concurrent with or prior to the filing of the plat at the County. 4 -26 -90 -2- •11 1 • INDOOR s a Nam was SEEM INS MOM ■1 ■� " NO all small am MIN I login I MOM ��1■ � ► ■■■ ■■ice /■■■��1/ /I' -' ■/■■ ■/ '�■/■■�•��. ■■■■■■■N■■■■■■/■�� i . '111 /1 /1111 /1 /1�'1 0011M. �■ Q�� MIN ..... MOM all as 001 ME INS IN all INS - Ml ME 100 211101 NOR OR 001101 Env � ` QS�flyM� t�/ / `� : : � ■ Diu � - � - �:••' CT , j � � 'sa :a � � _ 6 ,1�. � � S�. GHpR 1 t;'� — {a.�:. •�� a ' C ' o f "' n ear E ry�Ej HpD. •4 - .��. � 4[ -� , g \ ...,, - � .. p Ni ED Pub '.S � 'I, 'i � s 1 ', p •' n a.W�n' �:i�. • o Phi ° rr 11 .0 . y AV<T_ _ �ra...<..d.....r.. P.R IN�RY PLAT i9' ?Q0 , K�YN �I,NlTFp7 MFTHpQ,,IST � �iT � PPI T�PN .:r�,:: ` .. ;lY � ur rr.r •....,. x.,.an . � wr. � • 1 PREPARED FOR: NNW 1IFTMPff CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -7 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90009 - Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate Services, Inc. DEPARTMENT APP L: Si ature - title 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. 90009 is a request for variance approval from Section 35 -704 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow retail use of the Gold's Gym commercial building at 2920 County • Road 10. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its April 26, 1990 study meeting. Minutes, information sheet, map of the area, and site drawing are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial of this application on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met and also, a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amendment establishing a retail formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area no matter what the size of the building. The City Engineer and Commissioner Ainas left at 10:23 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 90009 (Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate Services Inc. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to allow retail use of the Gold's Gym building at 2920 County Road 10 with fewer parking stalls than required by ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90009 attached). The Secretary explained that the formula applied to the original Gold's Gym building was one space for every 200 sq. ft. which is a general commercial formula for uses not specifically listed. He stated that the building was technically not deficient in parking based on that formula. The Secretary also distributed to the Commission an April 25 letter from Chris Conroy, the owner of the St. Paul Book building, in which he stated he has no objection to the variance. Commissioner Bernards asked what agreement, if any, existed with the lot to the north of the Gold's Gym for parking. The Secretary stated that any agreement that existed was a private agreement that was not required by the City. The Planner stated that it was evident that the old parking formula for the health club was apparently not sufficient. He added, however, that the experience with the retail formula is that it places a heavy burden on smaller buildings. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Pete Helger of Reliance Real Estate Services addressed the Commission at some length. Regarding the Standards for a Variance, he stated that he felt a hardship does exist because land cannot be added to the site in order to meet parking requirements. He noted that this is not an unusual situation for existing buildings. As to the example in the staff report of reusing the building as a restaurant, he agreed that the site simply would not work as a restaurant, that there was not enough parking. He stated that he felt the request by Jo Ann Fabrics to use the building is, in the long run best interest of the community. He pointed out that the lease would be 20 years. As to uniqueness, Mr. Helger stated that the building is functionally obsolete. He agreed that variances shouldn't be granted on the basis of market conditions, but should at least be considered. He stated that the building and site in question are good for a low traffic use because of the circuitous access, not a high traffic use. He stated that Jo Ann Fabrics would be a destination type commercial use. He then reviewed other businesses in the area and stated that they, too, are all destination type businesses. He stated that they were asking the City to be flexible in enforcing its regulations. He stated that it was not practical to think of demolishing the building and that it was more cost effective to convert the building to retail than to office use. 4 -26 -90 -14- Mr. Helger stated that he agreed that the City was not obliged to grant a variance to accommodate a reuse of the building, but he felt that the Standards for a Variance are met in this case. He then distributed to the Planning Commission and reviewed on an overhead transparency the parking formulas for retail uses of other cities in the Metro area. He noted that most of them require five spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area and that if such a formula were adopted in Brooklyn Center, the retail use of the Gold's Gym building would be legal. He noted that planning staff agree that the Brooklyn Center parking formula for retail uses penalizes smaller buildings. Mr. Helger went on to state that they did not have time to wait for an ordinance change, but needed to act fast in order to make the deal work with Jo Ann Fabrics. Mr. Helger also pointed out that in 1986, David Otto applied for a variance for the St. Paul Book building which was ultimately approved. At that time the City Council questioned whether other buildings were in a similar situation. The conclusion at that time, he said, was that they did not think so. He stated, however, that the Gold's Gym building is in a very similar situation. He asked for approval of the variance application based on this precedent. Mr. George Vestrum, a real estate broker for Jo Ann Fabrics, pointed out that Jo Ann Fabrics is presently in Brookdale. He stated that they wanted to expand in a new building. He pointed out that the new building would be three times as much space as they have at Brookdale. He stated that Jo Ann Fabrics wants to stay in the community, but that they have a short time frame in which to make a decision. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that the thinking on the part of the two City Council members that voted against the retail formula in 1986 was that the retail formula had served the City well and that it shouldn't be changed now. He noted that one of the Council members looked for a tradeoff involving more landscaping. The Secretary explained that this would have led to nonconforming situations and was not adopted. The Secretary went on to explain that a study by the Urban Land Institute regarding parking at shopping centers concluded that somewhat more parking is actually demanded for larger shopping centers than for smaller shopping centers. He pointed out that the City's formula is just backwards from this finding. The Secretary concluded by pointing out that the variance granted in 1986 was probably not a very good decision, but was approved because it was thought that an ordinance amendment would soon be adopted that would legitimize the action taken in the variance. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the original Health Spa building was allowed by variance. The Secretary explained that the building and site met the parking formula of one space for every 200 sq. ft. 4 -26 -90 -15- which was the basic commercial requirement applied to the building at that time. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission made a recommendation to reconsider the ordinance amendment, should they not act on the variance and, therefore, hold up the deal. The Secretary answered that he felt that this case does not meet the variance standards. He stated that the hardship in question has been created by the owner and that the situation is not very unique. The Secretary recommended denial of the variance, but a change in the ordinance for the retail parking formula. He suggested that the Commission send the variance on to the Council with a recommendation to deny. Chairperson Malecki agreed that that w g t as the best route, to recommend denial of the variance and adoption of an ordinance amendment. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90009) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to comment regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion P asked unanimously. The Planner then distributed to the Commission a packet of material relating to the retail parking formula and alternate formulas. He briefly reviewed some of the materials in the packet and stated that his own experience from living and shopping in Brooklyn Center was that there was a noticeable surplus of parking at smaller retail centers. He stated that the only retail center that used up all the parking that it had was Brookdale. He pointed out that one effect of an ordinance change would be to reduce the formula on smaller retail centers. Another issue that needed to be addressed however was whether the basic retail parking formula should be reduced to 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. or 5.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. He explained that if the formula were reduced to 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, then Brookdale would come very close to being in compliance with parking requirements. However, he stated, if the basic formula were kept at 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, then Brookdale would be deficient in parking by approximately 500 parking stalls. He pointed out that Brookdale is considering an expansion and that this parking deficiency would have to be addressed in the near future. Mr. Pete Helger approached the Commission and asked that they approve the variance and the ordinance change. He pointed out the time constraint they were faced with in dealing with Jo Ann Fabrics. The Secretary responded that the time constraint was not the City's problem and should not drive the decision on a basic Policy issue. 4 -26 -90 -16- I There followed a brief discussion of alternate parking formulas. The owner of the Gold's Gym building, Mr. Israel Krawetz. stated that the City wants the best environment for its citizens and for the businesses that operate in Brooklyn Center. He asked again that the Commission approve both the variance and the ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki asked the Planning Commission how they felt about the parking formula, whether it should be 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft of gross floor area. Commissioner Holmes stated that, based on his experience at Brookdale he would recommend that the formula be 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Commissioners Johnson and Bernards agreed that the formula should be 5.5 spaces. Chairperson Malecki stated that she did not feel that the Standards for a Variance were met. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 90009 (Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate Services) and Recommendation for Adoption of an Ordinance Amendment Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend denial of Application No. 90 pp 009. on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met and also, to recommend to the City Council that it adopt an ordinance amendment establishing a retail formula of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area no matter what the size of the building. Commissioner Bernards asked how lon g it would take for an ordinance amendment to be accomplished. The Secretary stated that it would take about 45 days for an ordinance rdinance to become effective following City Council action. Commissioner Johnson asked that it be communicated that the Commission would like to see Jo Ann Fabrics accommodated even though a variance is not warranted. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business, there was a motion b Commissioner y Johnson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:29 p.m. Chairperson I f 4 -26 -90 -17- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90009 Applicant: Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate Services Location: 2920 County Road 10 (Gold's Gym) Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -704 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow retail use of the Gold's Gym commercial building at 2920 County Road 10. The proposed tenant would be a Jo Ann Fabrics store. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the south by County Road 10, on the west by TCF Savings Bank, on the north by the St. Paul Book and Stationery retail building and Northway Drive, and on the east by First Minnesota Savings Bank. Retail sales of fabric and related items is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. The variance is sought because there are only 56 parking spaces on the site. Section 35 -704 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 83 parking spaces for retail use of the 9,961 sq. ft. building. Therefore, the site will be deficient in parking by 27 stalls if the retail use is allowed. The applicant, Mr. Keith Sturm, is not the owner of the building, but a real estate agent seeking to market the property. He has submitted some background information on the property and the proposed use and has also made written arguments addressing the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance (see written submittal and ordinance section, attached) . A listing of the ordinance standards, a recitation of the applicant's arguments, and staff comments follow: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "A hardship is created by virtue of the fact that no expansion capability exists for the subject property to allow additional parking facilities to be constructed to match the existing building size. If the strict letter of the parking regulations were exercised, the available uses to occupy the property are severely limited, thus contributing to the perception of blight associated with long term vacant buildings. Additionally, the limited street access to the property is not well suited for higher traffic uses. This makes the property only appropriate for a low traffic, destination type of operation." Staff: The alleged hardship in this case is basically that the parcel is not large enough to provide the parking required for a permitted use within the zoning district. It is questionable whether this really constitutes a hardship. Restaurants are also 4-26-90 26 90 _1_ Application No. 90009 continued permitted in the C2 zone, but a restaurant of 10,000 sq. ft. would require at least 150 to 200 parking stalls and there is no question that this site could not accommodate such a use. Alternatively, an office use of the building in question would require only 50 parking stalls, within the amount available on the site. There will be substantial costs in remodeling the building to either an office or a retail use. The fact that a retail use of the building does not "fit" within the site (at least based on the ordinance parking formula) probably does not constitute a hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant seeks the variance because there is presently a market for retail uses in the area. Waiting for an office use might take longer since there is a surplus of such space right now. We would not recommend, however, that the City make zoning decisions on the basis of temporary market conditions, but rather on the long term best interests of the community. The practical consideration raised by the applicant in his written submittal is that Jo Ann Fabrics projects a need for a maximum of 20 parking stalls on most business days and 40 stalls on days with special sales. This demand would be accommodated by the 56 stalls available. The City has not in the past (and we not recommend now) used private parking forecasts to approve specific uses. Uses are approved and sites are designed on the basis of ordinance parking formulas. (Proof -of- parking has been acknowledged when an applicant does not feel so many parking spaces are required for the operation of their business, but the ordinance requirement is always met through the designation on a plan of "future" stalls. That is not the case here.) The issue of whether the retail parking formula is excessive was considered four years ago. No change was adopted at that time through the Planning Commission and staff recommended a change. More consideration of the ordinance itself will be given later in this report. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "The variance request is unique to this property because of the building age and its inherent functional obsolescence. However, newer properties developed under the guidelines of the ordinance that serve a variety of higher traffic retail uses would not require such a variance. Older buildings developed along specific zoning and parking criteria may currently exist in this zoning classification, and due to changing market conditions rising to their functional obsolescence, may result in similar hardships with other existing structures." 4 -26 -90 -2- Application No. 90009 continued Staff: The applicant basically acknowledges that other existing buildings may face the same difficulties in finding a suitable re -use as the building in question. The present situation is, therefore, not particularly unique. The applicant implies that the City should be flexible in enforcing its regulations in order to bring about re -use of existing buildings rather than so limit the possible uses that long -term vacancy and blight result. This argument is not totally invalid, but it should also be recognized that there are legitimate public concerns which must be addressed in the re -use of buildings. Parking is one of these concerns. The City should not accept just any use of a building to keep it occupied. The City should not accept just any use of a building to keep it occupied. In some cases, it may be appropriate to even demolish an existing building because it is simply not appropriate to the site any longer. These are judgments which the City may affect by the enforcement of its regulations, but which are, for the most part, made by property owners. It should be clear that the City is not obliged to grant a variance to save a building from functional obsolescence. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "The hardship is specifically related to the ordinance. Without such a stringent parking requirement the need for the variance would not exist. However, the hardship in effect, was created 21 years ago when the market demanded smaller health facilities. Because of the changes over time, health clubs have changed so dramatically that typical clubs are now 100,000 square feet or larger, as seen at the (new) Highway 100 Northwest Racquet and Swim Health Club. The small clubs that at one time thrived, have now become virtually extinct. This is evidenced by the many tenants they have had within the building that could not make ends meet financially. Because of these changes within the health club industry, and not because of any previous intentions, the referenced building, along with its parking facility, has become functionally obsolete as a health club. A parking variance, along with major interim renovations will make this obsolete facility functional again. To accommodate Jo Ann Fabrics within the strict letter of the current retail parking regulations would require the demolition of more than hal- the facility. This would create an inconceivable hardship economically as well as reduce the tax revenue the City currently enjoys. The existing parking is more than adequate for the proposed use of other potential low traffic generating retail tenants." 4 -26 -90 -3- Application No. 90009 continued Staff: The applicant argues that the hardship is created by stringent ordinance requirement and by changing market conditions which make the original use of the building obsolete. The hardship was not caused by the owner. To some extent this may be true. Nevertheless, the building and parking were created by the owner, not the Zoning Ordinance. The issue appears to be how to treat an existing building and site in light of the ordinance. Should a parking variance be granted? Should a parking ordinance amendment be adopted? Or should the owner be given direction to market the building perhaps for an office use which would comply with parking requirements? Our judgment, as we reported to the Commission in 1986, is that the retail parking formula which requires more parking per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for smaller buildings, appears to be excessive, at least for those buildings. We recommended an ordinance change at that time which would have given greater flexibility for the re -use of this and other small to medium sized commercial buildings. That change was recommended by the Planning Commission and received a 3 to 2 favorable vote from the City Council. However, a 4/5 vote was required to amend the Zoning Ordinance and the amendment, therefore, failed. If a variance is granted in this case, the City will probably be, in effect, amending its ordinance indirectly. We would prefer that a change in policy be indicated directly through an ordinance amendment, not indirectly through a variance. If the City Council does not amend the ordinance (and thus far it has not), it would probably be more proper to deny the variance and direct the property owner to seek out an office user for the property. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Applicant: "The variance will not be detrimental to public welfare and should enhance the neighborhood in that this vacant building will be occupied by a long term national tenant and that existing parking will be more than adequate at the facility. Additionally the adjacent retail uses are compatible with this proposed use and will reenforce the retail vitality of the area." Staff: We agree that a retail use of this building would be compatible with surrounding existing land uses. It would be a permitted use within the C2 zone. It would also probably live within the available parking on site. The issue is whether to apply the ordinance parking standard, to change it, or vary from it. Although an ordinance amendment has failed in the past, we believe it should at least be considered again as a possible route of resolving problems for this and other buildings. 4 -26 -90 -4- Application No. 90009 continued We are not recommending a variance at this time. However, if the Commission is inclined to recommend a variance, we will attempt to develop language addressing the ordinance standards at ' the Commission's direction. We will also supply the Commission with information on an ordinance change for your review. 4 -26 -90 -5- 35 -240 applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record cf the application. V 2. Standards for Vari ances _c a _arses The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Ccunci l may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circum:sZances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not reco —erd and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where -hie affected person's lard is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is cased are unique to the parcel of land for which the vari arse is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of lard. d. The granting of the variance will not be detri--ental to the ,=blic welfare or injurious to other land or improver-rents in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3• Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. Section 35 -704 MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. 1. Residence a. Two spaces per dwelling unit 2. Commerce (Retail and Service /Office) a. Eating and drinking places: One space for every two seats, and one space for every two employees on the average maximum shift. (Parkin g spaces aces for "drive -in" customers shall not be credited as a part of the off - street parking area needed to serve the sales operation conducted within the buildings). b. Automobile Service Stations: Three spaces for each enclosed bay plus one space for each day shift employee plus a minimum of two spaces for service vehicles and one additional space for each service vehicle over two in number. c. Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions: Eleven spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof; eight spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet; six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 15,000 square feet, but not exceeding 30,000 square feet; 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area exceeding 30,000 square feet. In multitenant retail centers, no additional parking spaces beyond those required by the retail formula shall be required of restaurant uses which altogether occupy not more than 15% of the gross floor area of the center. The parking formula for eating and drinking establishments shall apply proportionately to the seats and employees occupying space in the center over and above 15% of the gross floor area. d. Motels and Hotels: One space for each unit plus one space for each employee on any one shift. e. Bowling Establishments: Five spaces for each lane. Additional parking for food and refreshment facilities shall be determined according to subsection (a) above. �a � "'� �'�� """ :a M � �,■s tttta• tig 1. r tttr o � �•� A • vv ��, -� _ ter r t r r� If c► FLI �' �, � tttt� tttttir • � - ' , ' - �t t�f• �ti EL FA NORTHPOR SCHOOL `• �� I j ��+ S 1.• �� ■ ■fit = �� $;��i ♦ ,:; � ttttr � � Y i H - tr MIT V i I lk. ' a 7 l O (�REi•, f��,C 1, E IEV. 675' rw. ,I. tl .� - a r It t,. �I _._.____ �t� •�._ __ f.. � m t7a.,•' � r u. I F n�.�..y ' ar. Er. fz. A tiln. l D I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1990 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning ordinance g relatin g parking to the arkin requirement for retail � stores or centers and financial institutions. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL STORES OR CENTERS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -704. MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. 2. Commerce (Retail and Service /Office) C. Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions: Eleven spaces for the first [1,000] 2.000 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof; [eight spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet; six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 15,000 square feet, but not exceeding 30,000 square feet;] 5.5 spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet of gross floor area exceeding [30,000] 2,000 square feet. In multitenant retail centers, no additional parking spaces beyond those required by the retail formula shall be required of restaurant uses which altogether occupy not more than 15% of the gross floor area of the center. The parking formula for eating and drinking establishments shall apply proportionately to the seats and employees occupying space in the center over and above 15% of the gross floor area. ORDINANCE NO, Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) ' KO 4 - APR 10 9� 14:79 T� 6123�,!8�71 FF.Gf1 FAERICENTERS OF AMER T 301 P. 02 F abri- center-, Q ( A M R I G A I N C CORPORATE OMCES AND DlSTRIBVTION CENTER; 23550 COMMERCE PARK ROAD CLEVELAND. OHIO 44122 PHONE! (216) 464.2500 April 10, 1990 Capital City Investments 246 S. Albert St. St. Paul, MN 55105 RE: 30-Ann Fabrics #703 Minneapolis, MN Gentlemen: We are pleased to present the following information about our company. Fabri- Centers was begun in Cleveland, Ohio in 1943 as a store front business. Since then, the operation has expanded to become a national chain of 630 stares in 40 states. The company has about 7000 employees. While most of the stores operate under the name of Jo -Ann Fabrics, some also operate under th names of Showcase of Fine Fabrics, House of Fine Fabrics and Best Fabrics Outlet. The merchandise includes fabric, sewing machines, notions, patterns and accessories for clothing, home decoration and Crafts. The stare proposed at this location will be 10,000 square feet in size and be operated by a staff of 5 to 10 depending on time of the year. Store hours are expected to be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Parking for customers is planned to require about 20 spaces during normal store days and double that amount on promotional sale days about 50 per year. We look forward to opening this store before Summer of 1990 and to establishing a promising business within this fine com munity. Respect ly Submitted, Pete El -Gi di Vice Presi ent - Facilities PG:lw CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 /07/90 Agenda Item Number Xgav REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252 AND TO HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH (8 :00 P.M.) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OFPUBUC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Y es ) A public hearing regarding proposed improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue and Humboldt Avenue North is scheduled to be reconvened at 8:00 P.M., May 7, 1990, in City Council Chambers. A public hearing regarding these proposed improvements was held April 9, 1990. Unfortunately, the notice for that hearing incorrectly identified Constitution Hall rather than the City Council Chambers as the location of that hearing. In addition, the City Attorney informed us that the notice's description of the properties proposed to be assessed was not sufficiently clear, and could have been more detailed. Accordingly, these defects have been corrected, proper notice has been published in the City's official newspaper, and individual notices have been mailed to the affected property owners. The information sent to the property owners is attached for reference, as are the three proposed assessment rolls. It is recommended that the public hearing be reconvened, and that all comments, testimony, and evidence offered at the April 9 meeting (the Deputy City Clerk's notes are attached) also be considered at this hearing. It is recommended that the hearing be conducted in accordance with the following format: Part 1: City staff present an overview of the proposed improvements Part 2: Open public hearing for comments regarding proposed improvements Part 3: Close public hearing • Part 4: Discussion by City Council Part 5: Consideration of the attached resolution which orders the improvements. i If a vote is taken on the resolution ordering the improvement, it should be taken by roll call. Because this project was initiated by Council action and because it is proposed to levy special assessments to cover a part of the costs, adoption of this resolution requires a 4/5 vote. The following is a tentative implementation schedule for completion of this project if it is ordered by the City Council. May 8, 1990 - bid opening May 21, 1990 - Council award 1st week in June, 1990 - begin construction September 1, 1990 - substantial completion September 10, 1990 - special assessment public hearing CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BYROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 NOTICE OF RECONVENED HEARING Dear Property Owner: On Monday, April 9, 1990, the Brooklyn Center City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed improvement of Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue from Shingle Creek Parkway to T.H. 252 and of Humboldt Avenue from Freeway Boulevard to 69th Avenue North. Unfortunately, the Notice of Public Hearing mailed to you incorrectly identified the location of this hearing as Constitution Hall of the Civic Center instead of the City Council Chambers, and was not sufficiently clear in its description of the properties proposed to be assessed. This description has been corrected on the attached Notice of Public Hearing. DUE TO THESE DEFECTS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE THAT HEARING WILL BE RECONVENED at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, May 7, 1990, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall. The proposed projects have not changed in any way from the summary included in the previous mailing to you, and as discussed at the April 9 hearing. The reconvened hearing will be an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement, if you desire to do so. You may appear at the reconvened hearing even if you appeared at the April 9 hearing. However, if you offered comments at the April 9 hearing, you need not appear again at the reconvened hearing. The reconvened hearing will be treated as a continuation of the April 9 hearing. Therefore, the City Council will consider comments made at the April 9 hearing as well as comments made at the reconvened hearing before making a final decision regarding these projects. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 569 -3340, if you need additional information or have a question which could be resolved in advance of the reconvened hearing. Yours very truly, Sy napp Director of Public Works � 'J ?MAU-WRKACM -� CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 1 911 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in the City Council Chambers of Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8:00 p.m., May 7, 1990 for a public hearing on the following improvement: Description: Street reconstruction, including storm sewer improvements, regrading, subgrade preparation, installation of concrete curb and gutter, bituminous paving, construction of sidewalks and bikeways, installation of traffic signal systems, and landscaping. Location: Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue from Shingle Creek to T.H. 252; and Humboldt Avenue North from Freeway Boulevard to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $1,378,460.00 The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for the Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue project includes: • all properties abutting that portion of Freeway Boulevard which lies between Shingle Creek and Humboldt Avenue North, and all properties not abutting Freeway Boulevard but lying between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue North that are north of I- 94/694 and south of Freeway Boulevard; and • all properties which lie between Humboldt Avenue North and T.H. 252 which: are zoned or used as commercial, industrial, public or multiple family, which abut the north side of 65th /66th Avenues North, or which lie north of I- 94/694 and south of 65th /66th Avenues North; and all properties located within Block 1 of Riverwood Townhomes Addition. 1966 RllAAIfRIG Qi'f i April 23, 1990 Page Two The area proposed to be assessed for the Humboldt Avenue project includes all properties abutting that portion of Humboldt Avenue North which lies north of a point approximately 200 feet north of Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue North and south of 69th Avenue North; all properties located within Block 1 of Humboldt Square Estates; and all properties located within Block 1 of Rosemary Terrace. A previous hearing on these improvements which was held on April 9, 1990 is being reconvened at the time and place stated above because of a defect in the notice of hearing. Any persons who desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this reconvened hearing. However the reconvened hearing will be treated as a continuation of the April 9 hearing, and the City Council will consider comments made at the April 9 hearing as well as comments made at the reconvened hearing before making a final decision regarding these improvements. Therefore, persons who made comments on the improvements to the City Council on April 9 need not repeat those comments at the reconvened hearing in order to have their comments considered by the Council. 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. Senior citizens and persons totally or permanently disabled may -be eligible to defer some or all of this proposed special assessment. Please contact the Engineering office at 569 -3340 for more information. D. K. Weeks City Clerk Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on April 25 and May 2, 1990 FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH /66TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT FREEWAY BOULEVARD: SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO HUMBOLDT AVE Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate PROPOSED A ZONE B ZONE PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA AREA 135- 119 -21 -13 -0012 1 2200 Freeway Blvd. I I -1 1 $25,020.80 1 44,800 212,800 1 135- 119 -21 -13 -0019 1 Vacant 1 I -1 12,135.60 1 36,000 48,000 1 135 119 -21 -13 -0020 1 2100 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 23,310.04 1 69,200 92,000 1 135- 119 -21 -13 -0006 1 2101 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 21,949.00 ( 86,000 6,000 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0008 1 1800 -1900 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 41,165.88 1 109,200 212,800 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0004 1 Vacant 1 I -1 1 351.14 1 1,000 1,550 1 135 - 119 -21 -14 -0011 1 1600 -1700 Freeway Blvd. ( I -1 1 36,761.60 1 112,000 134,000 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0009 1 6511 -6521 Humboldt Ave. i R -5 1 7,661.39 1 30,560 1 135 - 119 -21 -14 -0010 1 6501 Humboldt Ave. 1 C -2 1 10,044.80 1 40,067 1 135 - 119 -21 -42 -0006 1 6445 James Circle N. 1 I -1 1 19,840.16 1 68,800 40,000 1 135- 119 -21 -42 -0003 1 6415 James Circle N. i t -1 1 8,190.72 1 126,400 1 135- 119 -21 -42 -0010 1 Vacant 1 I -1 1 2,980.80 1 46,000 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0016 1 Vacant 1 I -1 1 7,244.64 ( 111,800 1 135 - 119 -21 -41 -0017 1 Vacant 1 I -1 1 12,636.00 1 195,000 1 135- 119 - 21-41 -0003 1 1501 Freeway Blvd. 1 C -2 1 39,524.84 ( 113,200 172,000 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0008 1 6440 James Circle N. 1 I -1 1 19,726.30 1 57,800 80,800 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0014 1 1601 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 9,952.90 1 37,400 8,900 1 135 - 119 -21 -41 -0015 1 Vacant 1 1 -1 1 3,155.76 1 48,700 1 1 -------------------- 1 ----------------------------- 1----- 1------ --- ---- 1--- ----------- --- - -1 1TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTSI 1 $301,652.37 1 806,027 1,536,750 1 -------------------------- NOTES: This listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area. Assessments are based on the project as proposed. FREEWAY BOULEVARDJ65T2166TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 65TH 166TH AVENUES: HUMBOLDT TO T.H. 252 Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate PROPOSED A ZONE B ZONE FRONT PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA AREA FEET ---------------------------------------- 36- 119 -21 -23 -0001 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. $78,679.98 246,600 1,114,200 36 119 -21 -32 -0082 1101 65th Ave. N. 10,980.05 53,200 25,536 36- 119 -21 -24 -0037 6500 Dupont Ave. N 13,280.03 52,600 112,123 36- 119 -21 -24 -0012 6535 Humboldt Ave. N. 15,780.99 63,600 125,670 36- 119 -21 -24 -0046 6507 66th Ave. N. R -5 11,900.88 61,200 3,200 36- 119 -21 -31 -0045 6305 Camden Ave. N. R -5 27,207.12 73,200 468,800 36- 119 -21 -42 -0017 6445 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 2,589.12 92,800 36- 119 -21 -42 -0018 Vacant C -2 691.92 24,800 36- 119 -21 -42 -0016 6537 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 4,519.80 162,000 36- 119 -21 -42 -0015 6531 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 1,450.80 52,000 36- 119 -21 -24 -0047 700 -890 66th Ave. N. R -3 12,181.00 650 36- 119 -21 -13 -0009 6512 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375 36- 119 -21 -13 -0010 6506 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375 36- 119 -21 -13 -0011 6500 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375 36 119 -21 -13 -0033 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 1,008.42 36,144 36 119 -21 -13 -0032 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 435.24 15,600 36- 119 -21 -13 -0031 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 363.06 13,013 36- 119 -21 -13 -0030 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 314.43 11,270 36 119 -21- 13-0029 6525 West River Road C -2 397.30 14,240 36 119 -21 -13 -0028 6525 West River Road C -2 111.32 3,990 36 119 -21 -13 -0027 6525 West River Road C -2 1,278.71 45,832 36 119 -21 -13 -0110 413 66th Ave N. C -2 11,426.40 54,000 36,0.00 36 119 -21 -13 -0109 6545 West River Road C -2 11,734.40 60,800 36 119 -21 -13 -0079 Vacant C -2 12,333.00 48,000 110,000 36 119 -21 -13 -0080 412 66th Ave. N. C -2 3,860.00 20,000 36 119 -21 -13 -0086 6646 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 155 FF) 36- 119 -21 -13 -0087 6644 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 20 Units 36- 119 -21 -13 -0088 6642 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0089 6638 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36 119 -21 -13 -0090 6636 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0091 6634 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 36 119 -21 -13 -0092 6630 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0093 6628 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0094 6626 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0095 6622 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0096 6620 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0097 6618 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36 119 -21 -13 -0098 6616 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0099 6615 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 36- 119 -21 -13 -0100 6613 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36 119 -21 -13 -0101 6611 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36 119 -21 -13 -0102 6609 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36 119 -21 -13 -0103 6605 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36 119 -21 -13 -0104 6603 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " 36- 119 -21 -13 -0105 6601 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 " --- --------- ----------- - - - - -- - - - -- --- --- -- - - -- -------- -------------------- TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS $226,213.37 1 733,200 2,495,343 805 ------------------- --- - -- NOTES: This listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area. Assessments are based on the project as proposed. HUMBOLDT AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS: 65TH TO 69TH AVENUES Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate PROPOSED A ZONE PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA ---------------------------------------------- 135- 119 -21 -14 -0009 1 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 $19,213.32 1 249,200 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0013 1 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 1 8,986.47 1 116,556 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0015 1 6637 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 1 3,797.48 1 49,254 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0007 1 6719 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0008 1 6721 Humboldt Ave. N. ( R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0009 1 6715 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0010 1 6717 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0026 1 1537 Humboldt Place ( R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0027 1 1543 Humboldt Place i R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0028 1 1549 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0029 1 1555 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 135- 119 -21 -11 -0030 1 1531 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0031 1 1525 Humboldt Place i R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0032 1 1519 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0033 1 1513 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0034 1 1509 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0035 1 1501 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0002 ( 6737 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 4,172.65 1 54,120 i 135- 119 -21 -11 -0017 1 6753 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0018 1 6749 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0019 1 6757 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0020 1 6761 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0021 1 6769 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 ( 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0022 1 6765 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 i 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0023 1 6773 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0024 1 6777 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 i 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0006 i 6807 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 7,003.92 1 90,842 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0005 1 1505 69th Ave. N. 1 C -2 1 2,931.96 i 38,028 1 136- 119 -21 -23 -0001 1 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 1 16,730.70 1 217,000 136- 119 -21 -22 -0043 1 6640 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 3,243.98 1 42,075 1 136- 119 -21 -22 -0038 1 6700 Humboldt Ave. N. ( R -5 1 3,269.43 1 42,405 1 136- 119 -21 -22 -0047 1 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. i C -2 1 12,889.96 1 167,185 1 136- 119 -21 -22 -0036 1 6840 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 C -2 1 1,997.82 1 25,912 1 1 -------------------- 1----------------------------- 1-- --- 1---------- --- 1--- -- - -- - -1 1 1TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS) 1 $95,121.97 11,233,748 1 NOTES: This listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area. Assessments are based on the project as proposed. I __ 773 a Le-' U y Li LI The City Manager presented the next item which was a ublic hearing regarding P g g g proposed improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252 and to Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North. He stated notices of this hearing have been published in the City's official newspaper, and individual notices were sent to the owners of property affected by the proposed improvements. He explained the project initially started as a heavy maintenance project within the existing curb line. He noted as staff reviewed the project area, they found a number of existing problems and needs for other improvements. The City Manager stated staff recommends the public hearing be conducted in accordance with the following format: an overview of the proposed improvements; public hearing for comments regarding proposed improvements; discussion by City Council; and consideration of the two resolutions prepared for this evening's meeting. The Director of Public Works went on to review the existing conditions along this area and the proposed improvements. He noted the proposed projects include many major components. He then reviewed the existing traffic counts in the area and the projections made for the year 2010. He continued with a detailed description of the proposed improvements along Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue and also the improvements to Humboldt Avenue and Dupont Avenue. He noted the sanitary sewer line along this area was also televised during review of the project, and it was noted there are ten sections which will need repair. He stated he would recommend repairing these areas before proceeding with the street improvement project. Councilmember Pedlar inquired where the projected traffic would be coming from in the year 2010. The Director of Public Works stated it is expected the now undeveloped areas in the industrial park will create more traffic by the year 2010. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the projection for traffic includes any redevelopment of the Lynbrook Bowl area. The Director of Public Works stated the present site conditions were used in figuring the traffic projections. Councilmember Cohen inquired if staff has reviewed the project with the Brooklyn Center High School administration. The Director of Public Works stated he has reviewed the entire project with Superintendent Rossi. He noted Brooklyn Center High School has requested that the sidewalk along Humboldt Avenue be widened to 14' and to also make it adjacent to the curb. Councilmember Paulson inquired why Humboldt Avenue sidewalks are not tied into the trail system. The Director of Public Works explained it is not recommended that this area be designated as a full trailway because it is very difficult to extend the trail past 69th Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding proposed improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252 and to Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North. He recognized Lynn Torkildson of Riverwood Townhomes. Ms. Torkildson stated she has not noticed any large amounts of traffic in the area since the I -694 detours. She inquired if the traffic counts were taken during the detours. The Director of Public Works explained the traffic counts were taken before and after the detours last summer, and these counts were compared with counts taken in 1988 for accuracy. Ms. Torkildson stated she feels the Riverwood townhome complex creates less traffic than a normal City block with single- family homes. She inquired if any consideration has been given to reviewing the assessment policy so that Riverwood Townhomes would not have to 4990 a, pay any special assessments. The Director of Public Works stated staff has not reviewed this specific area, but they can do so and report back before the special assessment hearing. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council regarding the proposed improvement project. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Paulson stated he would like to recommend that Humboldt Avenue be added as part of the trailway system to 69th Avenue North. The City Manager inquired if the Council could direct staff with a separate motion to investigate this recommendation. Councilmember Paulson stated he also feels there are other areas which may be in greater need of improvements. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -76 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27, 1990- 11 AND 1990 -12, FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252; AND FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -27, HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen directing staff to review the assessment policy as it pertains to Riverwood Townhomes along 66th Avenue North; to investigate the possibility of extending the bicycle trail from 67th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North along Humboldt Avenue; and also to prepare a statement of priorities on other State Aid streets. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -77 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MSAP 109 - 121 -04 AND 109 - 111 -13, FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252, AND MSAP 109 - 108 -04, AND ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9 :05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 p.m. 4/9/90 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1990 -11 AND 1990 -12, FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252; AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -27, HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH WHEREAS, Resolution No. 90 -55, adopted on the 12th day of March, 1990, set a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed reconstruction of Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252, and for Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North; and WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing thereon was held on the 9th day of April, 1990, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, because of a defect in the notice of hearing for said hearing, the Council reconvened the hearing on May 7, 1990 pursuant to Resolution No. 90 -81 adopted by the Council on April 23; and WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing was given and the reconvened hearing thereon was held on the 7th day of May, 1990, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered all comments, testimony and evidence offered at both the April 9 hearing and the May 7 hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. 90 -55. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/7/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM - SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1990 SEALCOATING PROGRAM ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP , RECTO O PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: :•;. f No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) On February 26, the City Council adopted a resolution approving specifications for the 1990 sealcoating program. The technical portion of those . specifications, relating to materials to be used, are identical to the specifications used for the City's 1989 sealcoating program. Receipt of bids based on those specifications is scheduled for May 31, 1990. At the April 23 Council meeting, a citizen from the 6700 block of Ewing Avenue North voiced objections to the type of material used when streets in his area were sealcoated. A review of our program shows that those streets were sealcoated in 1988 (see attached maps showing areas which were sealcoated in 1988, in 1989 and are proposed in 1990). In 1988 the materials used were somewhat different than those used in 1989 (and now specified for the 1990 program). The difference is that the materials used in 1988 were somewhat coarser (maximum size 1/2 inch) than those used in 1989 and specified for 1990 (maximum size 3/8 inch). Also, in 1988 the contractor elected to use crushed granite, while in 1989 crushed trap rock was used (either material is allowed by the specifications). Granite chips tend to be more square (i.e. - more three dimensional), while trap rock chips tend to be flatter. Accordingly, there is a noticeable difference between the 1988 project and the 1989 project. The citizen who discussed this matter at the April 23 meeting spoke strongly in favor of the use of materials as used on the parking lot at Willow Lane School. We have contacted the contractor who placed the sealcoat on the Willow School's parking lot and have learned that the cover aggregate used there is also a crushed trap rock (not a "sand" as referred to by the citizen). However, the maximum size of particles used on that project is 1/8 inch. Further discussion with the contractor indicates that: • This is a new "product" which does not comply to any established • specification. • It has been used very successfully on a number of parking lots and entrance drives. • It does provide good skid resistance, while being easier to sweep up and it tends to provide less nuisance during the curing period (i.e. - the first 4 to 6 weeks after application). • Based on prices quoted, the costs per ton of this material is higher, but because a smaller amount is used, the cost per square yard is about the same as for the material now specified. • However, because the material is available from only one supplier, it is difficult to assure that a competitive price can be obtained. • One other factor noted by the contractor is that he believes the supply of this material may be limited because the single- source supplier is not equipped to provide an unlimited amount of this material. • While none of this material has been used on streets, the contractor believes it would wear well on low - volume residential streets. We tend to believe this, but it is impossible to provide that assurance without experience. • Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council choose between the following two options: Option A Allow bids to be received on the basis of the existing specifications; or 2Rt ion B Direct staff to issue an addendum to the specifications providing for an alternate bid to be received for the use of the 1/8 inch aggregate in lieu of the 3/8 inch aggregate now specified on the low - volume residential streets included in the program. Note It is not recommended that the smaller aggregate be used on the higher volume streets included in this year's program, i.e.: Xerxes Avenue from T.H. 100 to I -694 55th Avenue between Brooklyn Blvd. and Xerxes Avenue 56th Avenue between Brooklyn Blvd. and Xerxes Avenue Northway Drive from CR 10 to CR 10 63rd Avenue between Brooklyn Blvd. and Xerxes Avenue Earle Brown Drive from Summit Drive to Summit Drive On each of these streets, staff recommends use of materials meeting • our current specifications: If "Option B" is selected, and if favorable bids are received for the use of that material, staff will recommend award of a contract on that basis, with the intent of using this as a "demonstration project ". We would hope it would be successful, and that it would provide an option which is more acceptable to the public. City Council Action Required Discussion ....... If Option A is selected, no formal action is needed. If Option B is selected, adoption of the attached resolution. Note Councilmembers may wish to examine the existing conditions, for the three types of sealcoat materials discussed in this report, prior to the meeting; i.e.: • the 1988 sealcoat material (see attached map for 1988) • the 1989 sealcoat material (see attached map for 1989) • the Willow Lane School parking lot i ��IIII11 � J!l�IIII1111l�11111 � � � "'�' . ;'`:� � � �� , � � 1� 1111�lul�ll(�� I'V�I{�i►�s�► �� . ♦ Ir ►'•' �,�. 111111 I I � . /11 1! '� ,.� � s \ �i•�{ :1111 Cf�� ii 4' ,��, .► � , - �..! �� q • ♦t 1111 � `. � �' � art. "__ i'� ♦ �t I IIR OMNI �� rr illlllpQl�I R! ,M, , 1111111 •. '�, � 1111l11lIt {!�i Qdtilil!!!!�I!!�1 ® l; � s C S a '� � � 1 QQIQQI ►.� �1` ''. II � r 1, IIIIPc � ! 3 7 III 11� . �� ' I■ �. � � . , O- ��1 � rr j ;Q R � 116 Ir 1 �• + nunlullll � 1 '�;G r • •: 1 ► a �nnn' 1 .�i QQQ III Ilh '1111 r PAHA 0 1 '\ ��I Y --..�'.w «K.iw O ..YIV ) - -- — _ �• $600 [MU1 Avg N p / i C/ l Y �_ u ""uillflllll - " j ✓ �lUl / I / � r w[ No. f ll e < llllllllllv' [IW "01100 Avg. N "114 • P '1 1 / / /C f0I► AVgM l _ s MlN l ll l An N -- -- 1 r Ti y _ " _ . _ I -� k iA "� u uAib AYAN �1,�,� l _ CI � � ay Avg. N ONCHANO Avg N N w c AVE M L i � - 1� M666� #� � 7 �•" •' • r - II1�[IJ1l� :SOX AV[ N Iw KYLE AVE K yy �y 'l * Iw LIL , I I{[I� I I •-� "`[ - - INDIANA AVE N yj1T1�1 — "Al 11AM AVEN 5 GNIML[ AVL N IN M � uuAN.�� _ _ t- (Ilij•{ �p I7 '�i7� _ .. INaNCL AV[N H I tl t 1L1[�.l_J t till 11111 1 �(:�� [WING AYC.N l! _L�� IIIIII)[I ► Ilrr'�'i� IIYy a. [ .•. (� _ 1 JT ➢W •n, r InJ jlL ry JL -- Noo i-1 AVL N M Tlfl "I y { ' �C �:uONG AVE N , ioi0li Av[.N n I l!� A X t:N1, N O y � w A �� nr111 h fl 1 1 1 r " v � W �, y DNK AVE N 1 t X11 I i i r - iii a , , , .., • ��: -., -�� LA. Is..[J��J�J _ , • • h I�• KCNK[A AYI.N z »I�nm'I�EilI1J If wA 1111oNN AVE N 111 noil[J ~ ��t © � � . 4�� ` ;'� . r • J ;% � liW lNi AV► N 11111» l�r _ UM10N AVE N Y y v •y � I O THOMAS AVE N LNE XIOAN AVE N 4. o . '17� ^ t ^r \ Y. • ' }'1.�1, a� I .•' ` I h RUSSELL AVL. N r,LCN Avc N � A; . k�,Y.�, .w M W4 VL A N � n Ns AVE N. •.. ; ll �'i[l (�lti. '1 TTll•I .. .. I f - 1 ;I 104 AVLK lrLl le+N f[IIlJ fII JQ 7:I I] l l�l�l \ G ) FM Y 4AN Avg It (11II111111TT�DQIIl�l1 \ \ \�? \ � IOLAN AV[ .N fit KA FBI MET _ _ KNOK AV[ K I� 1 I`1 I'I 11E f �I l� JAW[ IT Ayr. N 1 T � � ♦ � ♦ � ♦ � ♦ � ♦ � ♦ � ♦ � I 1 �r� %� �� II I I I IIII I I�III�I ► ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ �' 1 � � i • � � ♦ ♦.♦, � I 111 IA ■ 111111 I II �I ♦ ♦ . ♦ b ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� '� � 1 ■111 IIIAIII 1 Iilllill�llllll ' �i ♦i ♦i �i ♦i ♦i � i ,. , �i ♦i ♦i ♦ ♦iii ♦i � \ � ►�'i�l � � � � S '� Ali r ii I � illlil °Ililiii _ a� r. �♦ ♦♦ ♦i ♦i ♦iii ♦i ♦i S. r I III I . I� _ ,.�._ i; '- �� ♦� ♦• ♦' ~= — �� I II i � i � I ni Ica ,: i1■ � • 1111 __ I �::!A = !s: I IIII _ • III UD 1111111! UP Ii'I Ann also • , �1• ,, ,'� I� IIII Vtlllll / � IIII: Ifiilt�i�i a�� •.••.•.= •.- ,.•�.•,� � ' �t::��. % 1411 11t �I �. �� ,� _ 1111111111 11 111! IF i +H7 1 ��.:s ��d� b ► I�� I�j al a il:L! 1 I ■■ � 1111: 1� *�r'�`�� : �� rl,y =� 3 �� 1 1 ii I � 3 ems• _" o�' �� '�' "mow-"" S � � �� r 111 ��1 � = m! �� 9■ as a i=�hli 11 � Otl� I ut A + — - �' fill � 11 = =111■ 111lGi7r1ii111 L*1��1`'M�� u I e 111 { 111i"1i r illl C I Irrr ,► Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDUM TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -08, 1990 SEALCOATING PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to issue an addendum to the specifications previously approved by the City Council on February 26, 1990. Said addendum shall provide for the submittal of an alternate bid based on the use of a smaller sized cover aggregate on low - volume residential streets in lieu of the cover aggregate now specified. Upon receipt of bids, the City Council shall retain the right to award the contract based on the alternate which it determines to be in the best interests of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. (CLMEMO) t �• :.4* DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Paul W. Holmlund, Director of Finance DATE: May 2, 1990 SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE CUTS TO CITY'S 1990 AND 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID The Legislature has adjourned and the results have started trickling down. I have summarized the information received from the League of Minnesota Cities through it "Cities Bulletin" concerning tax bill cuts to city aid from the state and it is as follows: As expected, local governments will bear the brunt of cuts needed to balance the state's budget over the next two years. The state will withhold an estimated $46 million in state aid from cities in Budget Years 1990 and 1991 combined. Cities will lose $15.6 million in local government aid (LGA) and homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA) in Budget Year 1990 under the tax bill. The aid cut is permanent and therefore saves the state another $15.6 million in Budget Year 1991. The law does not allow cities to increase their levies next year to make up for this aid loss. The repeal of all city levy limits will not take effect until 1993 to coincide with the scheduled repeal of county levy limits. (There are serious doubts as to whether the Legislature will allow levy limits to be repealed even then. I am one of the doubters.) The 1990 aid cut will first come from the City's LGA, then, if necessary, from equalization aid, HACA, and disparity reduction aid, in that order. In Brooklyn Center's case, the entire cut will come from LGA. Although the bill does not specifically address how the 1990 aid cuts will be made, presumably the cut will be divided equally between the City's aid payments which are due on July 20 and December 15. On top of the permanent aid cut of $15.6 million, LGA will be frozen in 1991 at the reduced 1990 level. Under this provision, cities will forego an additional $15 million in LGA inflation increases that were scheduled under previous law. The tax bill builds in future aid reductions for local governments. The bill states that if the aid cuts made for 1992 are not at least $175 million compared to current law, cities will be subject to a further aid cut based on their revenue bases. Based on current projections, this provision could trigger an additional aid cut of $20 million to $40 million in 1992, since the 1992 cuts are expected to fall short of $175 million. The bill also stipulates that any additional state revenues above the forecast amounts must first be appropriated to restore the state's rainy day reserve to $550 million. -1- From the above, you can readily see that the future for local government aid to Brooklyn Center is not promising. Without the repeal of levy limits, it will be next to impossible to replace the lost LGA revenue. The only bright spot in the legislation is a special provision that will allow Maple Grove, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, and Coon Rpaids to special levy for drug enforcement costs for 1991. The bill limits the special levy to $2 per capita and the cities must use the funds to pay the salaries and benefits of peace officers under a joint powers agreement whose primary responsibilities are to investigate controlled substance crimes or to teach DARE curricula in schools. The Legislature, while repealing cities' authority to impose up to six percent lodging tax (up to three of which could be used for general fund revenues) which was passed during the 1989 Special Session, allowed the City of Brooklyn Center to continue the tax because it had approved the additional 3% tax prior to February 1, 1990. This exception was due, I suspect, to a strong and effective lobbying effort on behalf of the City. The 1990 cuts in aid for Brooklyn Center are projected to be $108,145. Presently, that same amount is projected to be cut from our local government aids in 1991. When you add the amount of inflation related increases that we would have expected to receive in a normal year, our total cut from local government aids in 1991 is projected to be approximately $216,000. Our immediate concern is to adjust to the $108,145 revenue loss in the 1990 Budget I have annalyzed our budget performance to date and have concluded that we can survive the cut without making budget reductions at this time. We have a positive budget savings to date of $93,480 and another $25,000 that is quite certain. They are as follows: Management Information Services Coordinator savings $19,000 Police Officers savings 15,000 Assessing salaries savings 5,000 Mayor's salary savings 6,480 General salaries savings 48,000 Sub -total 93,480 Insurance savings 25,000 Total $118,480 The savings from the MIS Coordinator resulted from the delayed filling of the position until July 1st for a position that was funded for the full year. The savings from the police officers resulted from the late filling of two new police officer positions until March 15th for positions funded for the full year. The savings from the assessing salaries resulted from a plan to eliminate seasonal appraisal help and accomplish the tasks with existing full -time personnel within the department. The savings from the Mayor's salary resulted from the Mayor's decision to, once again, not to accept his salary. The general salary savings resulted from a 4.1% general employee salary increase which had been budgeted for a 5% increase. The insurance savings is expected to be the net insurance savings resulting from an anticipated dividend on a property /casualty insurance premium. The dividend is not included in the budget but, from the experience to date of both the City and LMCIT (the insurance carrier), it is quite certain. -2- The budget savings listed can offset the reduction in state aids for 1990. However, it should be noted that the $108,145 is lost forever and will not be recovered. The savings listed would have normally gone into our fund balance at year end and would have been available for the next year's budget. Since our state aids have been both cut and frozen, and levy limits will not be removed until 1993 at the earliest (and possibly never), some other source of income will have to be found to fund our existing programs to replace state aid cuts if they cannot be restored or levy limits abolished. -3- April 27, 1990 NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION 1990 LEGISLATIVE REPORT: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Tax Increment Financing will become very difficult to use, if not impossible, under the legislation enacted this week. HOWEVER, WITH A FEW AMENDMENTS NEXT SESSION, TIF CAN ONCE AGAIN BECOME A VIABLE FINANCIAL TOOL FOR HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT AND RENOVATION. The bill severely curtails economic development by limiting the use to manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, and telemarketing projects. Tourism and commerical space up to 5,000 square feet is allowed in TIF districts in cities with a population of less than 5,000. During an around the clock negotiation on TIF over the past weekend, Senator Larry Pogemiller, chief negotiator for the Senate Tax Conference Committee, was able to remove negative provisions such as VOLUME LIMITS, LIMITATIONS ON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, REVERSE REFERENDUMS, TIME LIMITS ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND RESTRICTIONS ON REPAYMENT BY THE DEVELOPER. Also, Senator Pogemiller was able to get language into Section 25, the enforcement section. This section somewhat tempers "witch hunts" and removes the county auditor from the enforcer position. The most damaging part of the newly enacted legislation is Section I which cost cities the loss of HACA/LGA aids. This is equivalent to the "hypothetical" loss of school aid to the school district involved with the TIF project. If new TIF districts are set up, the respective cities' local tax levy will increase to makeup the state aid cuts. However, the respective school district would not get any "new" money from the T1F district but rather the payments would go into the state education aid fund. For those communities that do not receive LGA or an LGA payment to the School Aid Fund, which exceeds their LGA, then the payment is made out of HACA Aids. The legislation will allow redevelopment, housing, renewal and renovation, and hazardous substance districts a five year grace period on the HACA/LGA payments. All other districts are subject to Section I from year one. This applies to all districts certified after April 30, 1990. The city of Minneapolis was given specific authority to go forward with the Neighborhood Revitalization plan, but had to give up 300 of the increment to the county and school district for programs directly relating to the neighborhood improvements. During the debate of the Conference Committee Report on the Senate Floor, Senator John Bernhagen from Hutchinson, commented that this bill has taken the wrecking ball to TIF. The HACAJLGA payment is a penalty placed on a community for wanting to keep renewing and rebuilding; itself. He predicts that with this requirement cities will no longer be interested in addressing these issues_ Therefore, for all intents and purposes, TIF has been repealed. It could, however, be considered a temporary situation if the legislature corrects these problems next session. Senator Linda Berglin from Minneapolis was very critical of the bill and said that it will hurt the financing and development of low income housing for poor people. She vowed that the issue is far from over and will be revisited next session. North M Ad-Hoc he N Metro Mayors Association formed an Ad organization that worked with I•i g Senator Pagemiller to draft alternatives to the house bill, These groups included lobbyists from Minneapolis, St. Paul, AMM, bond houses, Minnesota NAHRO, and consultants from several North Metro communities. Senator Pogemiller and Senator Novak, from New Brighton, have indicated that they are willing to work with our group for action in the 1991 legislative session to address the defects of the 1990 bill. We will ask Senator Luther and any other area legislators that can be recruited to also assist us in this effort. It will take a great deal of work to get this issue resolved. It should be noted that there was very strong organized opposition to Tax Increment Financing by the counties, school districts, Minnesota Business Partnership, 0 Minnesota Realtors Association, Taxpayers Association, etc. TIF has become a bad three letter word and it will take a massive educational effort along with developing a TIF support network. Our effort must begin now if we hope to succeed. MVET TRANSFER Only 5% was lost from this program. The cut results in $75.1 million in FY 1991, instead of the current law allocation of $87.6 million. Total MVET revenue to the state is $250.4 million. The House wanted to reduce the transfer to zero, while the Senate's position was to reduce the transfer to $67.6 million. The result was the 75.1 million compromise. The negative impact on North Metro transportation priority projects is not known at this time but it should be minimal if at all. BONDING BII,I, Blaine was allocated $8.5 million for their sports facility needs. This allocation is based on the condition that the project must be funded only with revenue bonds. The legislature made it clear that the proposal must stand on its own feet. We were fortunate to get this approval. The city of Roseville was not included in the bonding bill and has to compete for the $10 million allocated to the Metro Parks and Open Space Bonding Proposal. w T()TO1 P4rF lad l� Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 7, 1990: CIGARETTE (OVER THE COUNTER SALES) Brooklyn Center American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N. '} Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle �� ✓� City Clerk FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Duke's Amoco 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. Jerry's NewMarket 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. Korean Presbyterian Church 6830 Quail Ave. N. Leeann Chin, Inc. 6800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Spiritual Life Ministries 6500 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Fire Department 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS C & M Heating & A/C 12970 Arrowwood Lane Carver Heating & A/C P. 0. Box 123 Randy Lane & Sons 1501 West Broadway P & H Services Company, Inc. 208 73rd Ave. N. Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 K -Tel Drive Building Official SIGN HANGER Nordquist Sign Company, Inc. 312 West Lake Street Signcrafters Outdoor Display 7775 Main Street NE Venus Sign Company 10695 Johnson Street NE Building Official SWIMMING POOL Fun Services 3701 50th Ave. N. — N& , ,, 4 q Sanitarian GENERAL A ' • ' C " "�'�� PPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk