Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 08-27 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 27, 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. Resolution Recognizing the Achievement of Mary Jane Gustafson 7. Proclamation: a. Declaring September 17 -23, 1990, as Constitution Week 8. Report: a. Humboldt /Camden Task Force Report 9. Resolutions: a. Approving Proposal to Provide Archaeological Site Survey Regarding 69th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 *b. Accepting Proposals for Improvements at City Garage - Funding for these improvements is included in the 1990 general fund budget for government buildings division 19 *c. Accepting Proposal for Installation of New Window Frames at Boulevard Liquor Store #2 - Funding for this improvement is included in the 1990 general fund budget fore government buildings division 19 *d. Establishing Xerxes Avenue North, Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1990 -19, Approving Plans and specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids e. Accepting Proposal from S.E.H., Inc. to provide Professional Services Relating to Design Concepts for Improvements to T.H. 100 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 27, 1990 *f. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 8/27/90) *g. Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 90015 Submitted by Teasdale & Associates, Ltd. *h. Directing the Housing Commission and Planning Commission to Further Study the Issues and Advise the City Council of the Need to Provide Large Family Housing in Brooklyn Center *i. Authorizing Execution of Transfer of Funds Agreement with First Banks *j. Authorizing Benefits for New Police Officer *k. Amending the 1990 Pay Plan -This will change the position title of one code enforcement officer to property manager. One CEO will remain authorized in the plan. 10. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Political Signs -This item was offered for a first reading on July 23, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on August 8, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. b. An Ordinance Vacating Utility and Drainage Easements in Dale and Davies 2nd Addition -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. 11. Planning Commission Items: (7:45 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 90021 submitted by Brenda Noyed requesting special use permit approval to operate a home hair care salon in the basement of the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 16, 1990, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 90022 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center requesting rezoning approval to rezone from I -1 to ClA six parcels of land between I -94 and Summit Drive and between Shingle Creek Parkway and T.H. 100 -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 16, 1990, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 90022 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 27, 1990 is 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Property -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. 12. Discussion Items: a. Business Ethics Policy b. New Retirement Plan Alternatives for Elected Officials C. Hennepin Recycling Group Curbside Recycling Rules d. Setting Budget Hearing Dates *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment 7a. PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17 - 23, 1990, AS CONSTITUTION WEEK WHEREAS, our Founding Fathers, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, did ordain and establish a Constitution for the United States of America; and WHEREAS, it is of the greatest import that all citizens fully understand the provisions and principles contained in the Constitution in order to support it, preserve it, and defend it against encroachment; and WHEREAS, the two hundred third anniversary of the signing of the Constitution provides a historic opportunity for all Americans to learn about and recall achievements of our Founders and to reflect on the rights and privileges of citizenship, as well as its attendant responsibilities; and WHEREAS, the independence guaranteed to the American people by the Constitution should be celebrated b appropriate Y ceremonies and activities during Constitution Week, September 17 through 23, as designated by proclamation of the President of the United States of America in accordance with Public Law 915. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week, in the City of Brooklyn Center, and urge all our citizens to pay special attention during that week to our Federal Constitution and the advantage of American Citizenship. Date Mayor Attest: Clerk (Seal) • HUMBOLDT /CAMDEN TASK FORCE • FINAL REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT f, MEMORANDUM POLICE Chiet James Lindsay Captain Scott Kline 0 A'P E 1-fay 18, 1990 SUBJECT: Humboldt /Camden Task Force Final Report Attached please tincl the tinal report of the task force. The document represents many hours of work for all the members and is a true representation of -, - - he opinions of all the members. These findings and recommendations are not arranged in order of importance, but are simply grouped by subject. I would like to thank the tollowing members of the committee without whose voluntary time and effort this document would be nonexistent. 14r. Paul Durand, Brooklyn Center High School Representative Mr. Ken Evans and Mr. Gary Dean Paulson Apartment Complex Representatives 14rs. Virginia Erickson and Hr. John Davis Commercial Representatives 14r. Hike Miller and Mr. Denis Kelly Area Residents Firs. Rochelle Kohagen, Recording Secretary for the Group s HUMBOLDT /CAMDEN TASK FORCE Member Representing Scott Kline, Chairman Brooklyn Center Police Dept. Mike Miller, Vice Chairman Area Resident Paul Durand Brooklyn Center High School Ken Evans Property Manager Georgetown Apartments Virginia Erickson Owner Scoreboard Pizza Gary Dean Paulson Property Manager Humboldt Court Apartments Denis Kelly Area Resident John Davis Owner Humboldt Square Cleaners Rochelle Kohagen, Recording Brooklyn Center Police Dept. Secretary FINAL NEPORT OF THE HUMBOLDT/CAIIDEN TASK FORCE Backaround The 1111r17l7oIdt/Camden Task Force was organized in the Fall of 1989 by Chiet Lindsay in response to increasing numbers of calls from concerned citizens in the affected area bordered by Highway 694 on the south, the industrial area east of Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, 73rd Avenue on the north and 252 on the east. 'Vh e callers were concerned about what appeared to be an increase of gangs or groups or youths, predominately minorities, hanging out at the various commercial establishments in the area and intimidating visitors to the area as well as committing crimes such as assaults and thefts upon people in the area. The task force consisted of members from the commercial establishments in the area, managers of the apartment complexes and interested nrivate citizens who were residents of the area with Captain Kline acting as a police representative and chairman of the task force. The committee met several times in the Fall of 1989 and worked on defining exactly what the problems were as they were identified by the members of the task force. After their preliminary identification of problems, the task force then decided to hold public meetings in an attempt to get input from others in the area who were also interested in the problems. The first public meeting was held with employees from the city, -2- including the i)e-pa-rtm.ent and the Planning and Inspection Department, being represented 1) y speakers. The group then designed a pamphlet to be handed out to every resident, every commercial establishment and every apartment complex in the area announcing two public hearings to be held in January of 1990 when the task force would listen to testimony from interested persons in the area. Two public hearings were held in consecutive weeks with considerable interest shown by residents by the fact that each meeting was attended by over 100 people. The task force heard testimony from owners of commercial establishments, residents of the -apartment complexes and owners of private residences in the northeast neighborhood in the area previously described. A considerable amount of worthwhile information was received from persons who spoke at these two public meetings and the task force then began the difficult task of assembling all of the information received into 11 useable set of findings and recommendations. The following outlines the group's findings and the recommendations agreed upon. FINDING #1 The area apartment complexes are having a difficult time attracting and retaining quality tenants while simultaneously removing the poorer quality tenants previously attracted. -3- Recommendation #1 - The cities, in concert with the Multiple Housing Association, should lobby the legislature for a property tax reduction for housing improvements to upgrade the quality of apartments offered in the area. This would be in the form of some sort of a stepped reduction which would give owners an incentive to improve and maintain their buildings and see an immediate return for their money, as well as a short -term reduction in taxes while they improve the quality of the tenants they are attracting. Recommendation #2 - The cities, in concert with the Multiple Housing Association, should lobby the legislature for a change in the law on unlawful detainers to allow for more assistance from police agencies such as the local police department or sheriff's office in removing undesirable tenants and also allow for a shorter time -frame from the filing of the detainer to the actual removable of tenants and the rerenting of that unit by the owner. Recommendation #3 - An efficient system should be set up county -wide or metro -wide to provide data to rental dwelling managers on all unlawful detainers and criminal backgrounds on parties attempting to rent units so that they can make a quicker, easier decision on the quality of the perspective tenant. At the present time, it is felt that the process to get information from the county criminal justice system and the court system on -4- previous unl;ax detainers and criminal background information is too long and involved and that managers become frustrated in their etforts to obtain information which would help them greatly in making a decision on the quality of the persons attempting to rent from them. Recommendation #4 - Lobby the Metro-Council to devise a rental guide which would set up a uniform system for landowners or apartment owners to use in making background checks, writing contracts for rental and handling all procedures for removing undesirable tenants and getting unlawful detainers from the courts. It is felt by the task force that the Metropolitan Council would be the best agency to put together a. rental guide and distribute it throughout the entire Metropolitan area so that there would be uniformity in procedures and processes for renting to perspective tenants and removing those undesirable tenants. FINDING #2 - There needs to be a clarification of HUD or Housing & Urban Development regulations or the institution of a better regulation pertaining to requirements for eligibility for HUD housing assistance. Recommendation #1 - Have cities put pressure on the Housing & Urban Development Department to institute a process where they would require checks of previous owners to determine if there had been an unlawful detainer or serious rental problem with the persons attempting to get into the HUD program and using this undesirable east rental history as a disqualifying factor for anyone attempting to get into the HUD rental assistance program. F'[11 SING 43 - There are juveniles and young adults hanging around the commercial portions of the area and causing a loss of business due to customers being fearful about entering the area. ITI .Lhese kids are not attracted to structured activity such as Little League baseball, football, hockey, soccer and softball. With little to do, they are targets for older crang members to recruit. Recommendation 11 - 'Ne recommend that the city seek funding for a program similar to the one run by The City, Inc. in Minneapolis. A representative of that organization made an impressive Presentation to our committee and we are convinced that an outreach worker trained by the organization can Provide not only a positive role model for young people, but also improve participation in both structured and unstructured activities. Recommendation #2 - In order to support this outreach worker, the city must provide additional unstructured recreational and athletic programs and drop-ins utilizing existing facilities and local parks, schools and churches. These facilities would provide an alternative to "hanging out" in the commercial areas. Perhaps a part-time program director could be assigned to this Project would encompass not only athletic games, but also m u s i c , and dances. `!'here (-- o u I d also be opportunities for counselling and organizing community-based employment programs to expose these teenagers to a wider range of Possible opportunities for them in the area. Recommendation #3 - Continue the foot patrols in the area and expand them as weather permits. Feedback from the public in our open meetings seems to confirm that the patrols assigned to the area have been effective. We thank the city for this effective use of its resources. They might also consider periodic concentrated enforcement blitzes in select areas where there are youth problems to show the problem youths that if they don't find alternative ways to spend their time, they will be dealt with by the community in appropriate legal fashion. Recommendation It4 - We support the concept of a police liaison officer in the local school district not only to assist school Officials with problem kids, but to provide a positive role model someone they can trust to solve problems, someone they can go to to get questions answered--a friend. A -police liaison officer works not only with the kids, but with their parents as well, gaining access to areas that school officials cannot deal with. They would promote a safe and constructive atmosphere in a way no one in the school system can provide. Recommendation #9 - Tht- Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Department put together a task force to look at Brooklyn Center youth programs and recreational programs. The task force would be charged with the followinci: Assess whether the current programs address the needs of the youths in -Brooklyn Center based on the diversity of the community today. Provide= more liaison programs with at-risk youths in the community and look at more funding for youth programs such as employment skills, training, etc. Fl"NI)IING #4 - There is an increase in the use of drugs and alcohol by zt great many of the apartment dwellers and youths in the area. Recommendation #1 - Although alcohol and drug abuse are problems across the country, ie are faced with a concentration of the nroblem, in the Humboldt /Camden area because of the prevalence of low income housing. We urge Brooklyn Center residents and particularly the City Council to continue lobbying the state legislature for stronger penalties for alcohol and drug abuse, especially as it effects young people. it should be a major crlvtie or felony to solicit under 18 to buy drugs or to try to get them to sell drugs. Other instances would be crimes or actions committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs such it s a s sa u I t s a. n r! c ar accidents. We need stiff penalties not only to intluence future behavior, but to get current offenders C, 1: t the F , . , treet. Repeat offenders should receive penalties in geometric proportion to the number of times thev have been convicted., i.e., if the penalty for a crime is two years ror the first offense, the penalty for the third offense ought to be i7 , ight years. Recommendation 11"I - bec of the current laws and judicial system, Tvie do not incarcerate criminals until they have been arrested and convicted many times. Our solution must be to either start putting these people in jail for the first offense and keep theirs there longer or to protect ourselves from them, we must hire more police officers. At the present time, the judicial system does not appear to enforce even our current 'Laws. Therefore, we support hiring additional law enforcement officers. We also encourage participation in our highly successful cooperative 4-city drug task force and encourage the legislature to provide additional funding for the operation of such undercover operations. Recommendation #3 - The city should work on instituting more programs on drug education and awareness with younger children in the schools such as the D.A.R.E program (K-4) which is currently - being used In all areas of the country. #5 •- Th.e slo % juvenile justice system which many feel takes too long in getting the juveniles from the time of the offense thl the system to a time of punishment is a deterrent to F-ttective, law enfor(-ement and further exacerbates the neighborhood problems. As an example, testimony from the Police Department reveale(I Fh t a juvenile had been arrested and convicted more than nine times with no punishment given by the judge. Most of the arrests happened while previous charges were awaiting judicial review, Recommendation #1 - First, the judicial system must work to eliminate the log jam in our court system by hiring additional referees for the criminal - ,iustice system to faci faster trial time frames. Recommendation #2 - The city should lobby for legislation to change the law to allow 16 year olds and above to be heard in adult court tor misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses which would clear the less serious offenses out of the juvenile justice system. This would have the effect of making juveniles more responsible for their actions by exposing them to possible large fines and jail time for punishment. Jail time would also get them otf of our streets and eliminate their ability to provide a -10- negative i:ole model for younger children. Recommendation if' - 3 - Increase the penalties for juveniles tound guilty of the ,Ror(- F--, r i (,- it s offenses, particularly, the repeat ottenders. Currentl�,, for many offenses, probation is used as a punishment for numerous contacts with the system before the alternative of incarceration is even considered. This has led to a contempt by juveniles for the entire system, especially the judges. Recommendation #4 - We ,Tiust lobby for alternative facilities for incarceration that would provide these Youths i constructive trainin 0 11 how to cope in today's society; facilities which would p rovi d e a meaningful education an training which .could h(21p them got worth�uhile jobs and become productive citizens. Recommendation #5 - "Lobby the legislature for stronger laws making the parents more responsible for the offensive behavior of their juveniles. Somehow we have to impress kids that someone is always responsible. For over twenty years, society has tried to retreat from responsibility tor individual actions. They have blamed the government, big business and even society itself, but not themselves as individuals. That attitude must be turned around. We suggest that here is a small starting point. Cnnclusion It is the consensus of the entire task force that all of these items should be considered and any and all of them would lead to improvement in the area. With more of these recommendations viould come more solutions to the problems of the area and possibly t-he entire c-ity as it is felt that the problems with this area are go-inq to he spread throughout the entire city .iithin a short period of time. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 /27/9 0 Agenda Item Number 62-- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY RE: 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OR PUBLIC WORKS ***************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: &ai4oe -J- �. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YeS } During 1989 the City prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) regarding the proposed reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between the west City limits and Dupont Avenue North. In accordance with established procedures, copies of the EAW were distributed to various state and federal agencies in October, 1989 for their review and comment. One agency which responded to the notice was the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS). In a letter dated January 12, 1990, the MHS stated: "We have reviewed the projects to determine whether they will affect reported historical or archaeological properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places or in other inventories. No properties are reported within or in the immediate vicinity of the project area. "In the absence of reported sites, we have also evaluated the likelihood that unreported historic or archaeological sites may be present in the project area. Such sites could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed work. We believe that there is a good possibility that unreported prehistoric archaeological sites may be present, and we recommend that the project be surveyed to determined whether such sites do exist." Based on this response, a request was submitted to the MHS to conduct a survey of the type which they recommended. On August 8, 1990, we received a letter from MHS advising us that "a Native American archaeological /heritage site ... has been identified within Palmer Lake Park ... ", (within the area which will be affected if the project is constructed as proposed). "To date, cultural material has been found .. The letter recommends that "the feasibility of a redesign be considered ..." (to avoid impacting the site). Note: After review of the plans with SEH Inc., we do not believe it is feasible to redesign the project to avoid the area in question. The letter continues, that "... if an alternative design is not feasible, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will ... require an additional survey (Phase 2) involving more extensive testing ... to make a definitive determination of National Register eligibility and appropriate treatment of the site." To expedite the process, MHS suggests that the City contract with an ".. independent archaeological consultant who, in consultation with SHPO and the State Archaeologist's Office (SAO), would conduct the appropriate survey and, if necessary, mitigation (Phase 3) of effects to the site prior to construction ... Accordingly, staff has requested and received a proposal from the Institute of Minnesota Archaeology to conduct the necessary studies. This Institute, while based at the University of Minnesota, is an independent consulting agency which is included on SHPO's list of approved archaeological contractors. Also, SEH, Inc. has worked with this agency on previous contracts, and recommend their use. A copy of the Institute's proposal is attached. City staff recommends acceptance of that proposal. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY RE: 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) has advised the City of Brooklyn Center that a Native American archaeological /heritage site has been identified within that portion of Palmer Lake Park which will be affected by the proposed 69th Avenue Reconstruction Project No. 1990 -10, if that project is constructed as currently proposed; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works and SEH, Inc., the City's consulting engineers for this improvement, have advised the Council that it is not feasible to redesign the proposed project to avoid impacting the site; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained a proposal from the Institute of Minnesota Archaeology to conduct a more detailed (Phase 2) survey and, if necessary, to develop a (Phase 3) mitigation plan relating to the site in question. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Council hereby determines that it is not feasible to redesign the proposed project to avoid impacting the site as it is currently identified. 2. The proposal submitted by the Institute of Minnesota Archaeology is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute a contract with them on the basis of that proposal. 3. All costs incurred under the City's contract with the Institute of Minnesota Archaeology for this project shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2613. 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. THE INSTITUTE FOR MINNL•SOTA ARCI iAEU1,OGY 3300 UNIVERSITY AVE-. S.E.. SUITE 202 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS414 612/623 -0299 FAX 612/623 -0177 Beard Ur Di'rctors Maui ic U. Lam to Chair /august 23, 1 990 Miuucal Anrhnny D. knrna Mr. Sy Knapp Aawciatc Clsaii Director of Public Works rinr City Cl of Brookl Center Janrc, ltnluff Trea:trrrr 630 Shingle Creel Parkway K'4)�1rla Brooklyn (;enter MN SS43tl Dough- A. Rink Aiitnnalu.716 Bear Mr_ Knapp; Iran C'hNley x�a Win, Attached is an estimate for phase 2 archaeological work on a site to be impacted by the Thoma, Datdquisl re,aNgnment of 69th Ave_ N_ The not to exceed estimate for this wort: is VS 11_7I_ Ibe Mimsclonka time schedule for the work is included Under the budget 'ustitic dtiuu, w i is Clark A. n nhb% approximately three weeks. The time schedule for any p 3 wo rk is negotiable, l'i n t hy c Fia depending on the results of the phase ?. investiga Also attached is a copy of the repnrt tt o f work dujir- at the site by tlic Minnesota Historical Society. raml n HaLkcl if y ou have u o�wctt vd� Y airy q estions, feel free w cmtact me at 612-623 -0299. 1 iiral+rth Heflin &Y1 K'iuS , Sandia RAC St. Paul ]an \htncr 1•4u0c 1'01, ITIA S t. ri Crai Johnson I:3dcn Johnson StafAIChaC�lOg1St trc: ul icc Director Douglas A. Birk Scnior kcwarch Archacolo&4 Clark A. DoW, Scnior Rrsearch ArnhacolvEi.a Kint Ilreake -f Curator of Collections Lorundo MJ*ve AdntintUntr'e - Assistunt ES11KAIE FOR ARCHAFO(alCAL VORk U NEWK C MINTY, MR SOT1 15NU6I ELL011 WNDRICSSON, INC.) 1NCT11111f FOR NTNNFSBTA AfiQ1AEOL067 AUGUST 27, 1990 IVEM M5: Conduct a 0,a 2 arrharulogiral wcorkaitsau r nt a site to be affected by the realiguEEftt of Oth Ave. K_ in firooklte Centrt, Minmota PUPOSU BUM: Item Rate Mors Iasi!; Friayt Item lutal Total 4a:zt Cossmis ProjKt dirertrtr $16.82: S SR4.10 SI8.50 SIUMU $102.60 CUrator of collectiW SUM 10 $120.00 $24.00 $144.00 $144.00 field director (Johasm) $14.00 122 S1, M-00 1232.96 92,821.96 M ON.% Reqarrh a«isianl S1U.50 121! $1,260.00 :163.80 $1,423.80 51,423.80 S /Rile MJ LS 1rar,sForiatios S0. ?t 79Ii 518.00 14 8.UU $48.00 iJOay tars Per dins =xs.0ft 113 1100.00 S1F0.00 !180.00 Mist. field /fah supplies $100.00 $100.00 P1r0esraphic 1I00.00 V00.00 Report prep /&qH cation :150.00 5150.00 Sul-totals: S3,494.10 1439.26 14,_+75.36 i4,273.3f 1111Qitect forts E Ma $1,531.41 TOTAL Cn;i• 23,811.77 Budget 1Ustificatio6: 6 days field York fa. 3 ppWJp 10 days latwork /reM L pr"i dt ia. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/27/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT CITY GARAGE ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTO OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached } The 1990 Government buildings General Fund budget includes $22,000 for "Phase One" of remodelling at the City Garage. This remodelling of the stairs and upper level of the Garage, which includes the lunch room, locker room, showers and toilet, would: replace the flooring, install a dropped ceiling, paint the walls, and retile in the showers and toilet. The City Council authorized Mjorud Architecture to develop plans and specifications for the project, and request proposals. For this purpose, the project was separated into four components: general construction; tiling; sprinklers; and electrical. Proposals for each component were received on August 21, 1990. One proposal, that of Olsen Fire Protection, Inc., was received approximately 45 minutes after the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. This proposal was the lowest bid received for the sprinkler component of the project. As the specifications for this project allow the City to waive irregularities, it is recommended that the Council do so in this case and accept the proposal from Olsen Fire Protection. The general contractors were asked to provide an estimate for the additional cost of painting the locker room lockers inside and out. It is our recommendation that this item be added to the contract, as the finish on the lockers is scratched and worn. The low bidders for each component of the project are as follows. The general contractor proposal includes the additional cost of painting the lockers. Component Contractor Amount ------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- General Contractor E2 Construction $15,642 Tiling Grazzini Brothers 2,540 Sprinklers Olsen Fire Protection 1,350 Electrical Collins Electric 1,169 TOTAL $20,701 As noted above, the 1990 budget includes $22,000 for this project. That amount, however, is intended to also include architect's fees. The Council previously authorized expenditure of $3,200 for this purpose, leaving $18,800 for construction contracts. The proposals above exceed the budgeted amount by $1,901. It is expected that there will be sufficient funds available from other projects in the Division 19 capital outlay budget to meet this need. It is recommended that the low bids detailed above be accepted. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT CITY GARAGE WHEREAS, the 1990 budget for the Government Buildings Division includes as appropriation of $22,000 for Phase One remodelling of the City Garage; and WHEREAS, the City has received the following proposals for the specified component of said remodelling: General Contractor: Contractor Amount E2 Construction $14,442 Cottonwood Construction 14,670 W.H. Cates Construction 15,880 Tiling: Contractor Amount - - Grazzini Brothers $ 2,540 Trends in Tile 3,130 W.H. Cates Construction 6,890 Sprinklers: Contractor Amount Olsen Sprinkler $ 1,350 General Sprinkler Corp. 1,480 Carlson Fire Protection 1,700 W.H. Cates Construction 1,900 Electrical: Contractor Amount -------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Collins Electric $ 1,169 Bill Richmond Electric 1,391 Killmer Electric 1,395 W.H. Cates Construction 1,465 WHEREAS, the proposal of Olsen Fire Protection was received after the time of the bid opening, and the project specifications allow the City to waive any irregularities. RESOLUTION N0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. All irregularities in receiving the proposals are hereby waived, and the proposal of Olsen Fire Protection is hereby accepted for consideration. 2. The proposal of E2 Construction in the amount of $14,442 is hereby accepted. 3. The proposal of Grazzini Brothers in the amount of $2,540 is hereby accepted. 4. The proposal of Olsen Fire Protection in the amount of $1,350 is hereby accepted. 5. The proposal of Collins Electric in the amount of $1,169 is hereby accepted. 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute contracts with the above -named firms in those amounts for the completion of the work. 7. All costs therefore shall be charged to the Government Buildings Division 19 of the General Fund, Object No. 4520. 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT CITY GARAGE WHEREAS, the 1990 budget for the Government Buildings Division includes as appropriation of $22,000 for Phase One remodelling of the City Garage; and WHEREAS, the City has received the following proposals for the specified component of said remodelling: General Contractor: Contractor Amount -------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- E2 Construction $15,642 Cottonwood Construction 15,820 W.H. Cates Construction 17,730 Tiling: Contractor - Amount - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Grazzini Brothers $ 2,540 Trends in Tile 3,130 W.H. Cates Construction 6,890 Sprinklers: Contractor Amount -------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Olsen Sprinkler $ 1,350 General Sprinkler Corp. 1,480 Carlson Fire Protection 1,700 W.H. Cates Construction 1,900 Electrical: Contractor Amount -------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Collins Electric $ 1,169 Bill Richmond Electric 1,391 Killmer Electric 1,395 W.H. Cates Construction 1,465 WHEREAS, the proposal of Olsen Fire Protection was received after the time of the bid opening, and the project specifications allow the City to waive any irregularities. RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. All irregularities in receiving the proposals are hereby waived, and the proposal of Olsen Fire Protection is hereby accepted for consideration. 2. The proposal of E2 Construction in the amount of $15,642 is hereby accepted. 3. The proposal of Grazzini Brothers in the amount of $2,540 is hereby accepted. 4. The proposal of Olsen Fire Protection in the amount of $1,350 is hereby accepted. 5. The proposal of Collins Electric in the amount of $1,169 is hereby accepted. 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute contracts with the above -named firms in those amounts for the completion of the work. S 7. All costs therefore shall be charged to the Government Buildings Division 19 of the General Fund, Object No. 4520. 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 8/27/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW WINDOW FRAMES AT BOULEVARD LIQUOR STORE #2 ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: X11 SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR O -PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:'�'�, No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Proposals have been received for the replacement of windows and frames at Liquor Store #2, 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard. The hollow metal around the glass panels on the north and west walls are rusted through in several places, and cannot be repaired. The proposals would replace the current frames and storm panelled glass with anodized aluminum thermo -break frames fitted with Low E coated bronze insulated glass and bronze insulated panels. The new units will be more energy efficient. The 1990 Government Buildings budget includes $13,225 for this improvement. The lowest proposal is from Capitol City Glass Company, Inc., for $7,642. Capitol City is a reputable company which worked on the Earle Brown Farm project. This proposal is substantially less than the amount budgeted because the budget was based on replacing the hollow frames with new hollow frames; three of the four proposals received would provide anodized aluminum thermo -break frames. We have been assured that these frames would be at least as energy efficient as hollow frames. It is recommended that the low bid of Capitol City Glass Company, Inc. be accepted. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW WINDOW FRAMES AT BOULEVARD LIQUOR STORE #2 WHEREAS, the 1990 budget for the Government Buildings Division includes an appropriation of $13,225 for the installation of new window frames at Boulevard Liquor Store #2; and WHEREAS, the City has received the following proposals to install said window frames: Contractor Amount ------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- Capitol City Glass Company, Inc. $7,452.00 Harmon Glass & Glazing, Inc. 9,940.00 Hauenstein & Burmeister, Inc. 11,280.00 Gateway Glass Co. 13,174.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal of Capitol City Glass Company, Inc. in the amount of $7,452.00 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with said firm in that amount for the completion of the work. 2. All costs therefore shall be charged to the Government Buildings Division 19 of the General Fund, Object No. 4520. 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 8 /27/9 Agenda Item Number 6 1 d REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING XERXES AVENUE NORTH, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -19, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OrP WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:±��� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) ® At the regular meeting of August 14, 1989, the City Council adopted a resolution which ordered the installation of sidewalk on the east side of Xerxes Avenue North, between 65th and 66th Avenues North. The Administrative Traffic Committee had recommended that the sidewalk be extended north, across the MnDOT freeway bridge, to Shingle Creek Parkway (see attached memo). MnDOT has now completed the bridge project, and City staff recommends the sidewalk extension. The City Engineer has completed plans and specifications for this sidewalk project, and the total estimated project cost is $34,436.00. Included in this project is the construction of pedestrian ramps at the intersection of Summit Drive and John Martin Drive, near the north entrance of the Target store. Funding for the project shall be from the MSA Fund No. 2611. Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -19 CONTRACT 1990 - ti M mXE5 w f_ � �', � IR /PWf tMf O.u. �t......C.IRwLLlt W.C. gyta r lA MIfOMl1(. o ;�� I � I IQf1efI0Wi �— \ �> - Ll n X MIM AVE N _= I Ibe KJ IOr 7 77 ....e.tf,,,., I .a IIIA tm TrUGt■ el.i tm fll.R. SIDEWALK INSTALLATION EAST SIDE OF XERXES AVE FROM 66TH AVE TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY � MTN� r%E. w S_j� •-� < ;i I �..� —� _ / . -' / "• 'STN A E~ r� 3I �� 59TK AVE. 4. Li f{tT I Mff�► �16r Iy� I 68TH .VE. N. _ tg �S I�'� o ' •'1 94' Z �. tt AVE. Y. I \ 66: •l AME ti �• rINOfSTEA L.Li a �_ e , r - i 65TH ' AYE N r r x L�iOE7V ! l _may saw j 'E �T sj 5.SK AVE. N ,w i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: City Council FROM: Administrative Traffic Committee DATE: July 19, 1989 Recommendation No 4 Install sidewalk on the east side of Xerxes Avenue No. from 65th Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. Explanation The existing sidewalk on Xerxes Avenue from 59th Avenue to 65th Avenue is located in the center median. Between 65th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway the sidewalk is located on the west side of Xerxes Avenue. The new Xerxes Avenue bridge now under construction by MNDOT (to be completed by October 1, 1989) will provide sidewalks on both sides of the bridge deck. Residents on the 66th Avenue cul -de -sac (east of Xerxes Avenue) have requested the installation of sidewalks on the east side of Xerxes Avenue between 65th and 66th Avenues, to provide a place for their children to walk to the school crosswalk at Xerxes and 65th Avenue enroute to /from Garden City School. The Administrative Traffic Committee recommends approval of the request from the residents on 66th Avenue and also recommends that the sidewalk be extended north to Shingle Creek Parkway, using the new sidewalk now available on the Xerxes Avenue bridge, to create a more complete sidewalk system to serve pedestrian needs in this neighborhood. It is noted that between 65th and 66th Avenues the existing right -of -way is very limited. To allow construction of a 5 -foot wide sidewalk immediately behind the curb, it will be necessary to obtain a small triangular easement (approximately 3' x 40') from one adjacent property owner. Adequate right -of -way exists between 66th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. R4 u1 uunc.� an w ti. 7 rn z r*► a > 62T < LA. �= <, C -t's �- EXISTING SIDEWALK s L D �'- PROPOSED SIDEWALK 15 774 - AV _ N- U s ue• AVE N, ti % `� PM am -�` Y . ;< ` PARK 'y 63RD PROPOSED SIDEIJVALK XERXES AVE. NO. 66TH AVE. TO SHINGLE CREEK PKWY Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING XERXES AVENUE NORTH, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -19, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council regarding the construction of sidewalk and pedestrian ramps at a combined estimated cost of $34,436.00; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said sidewalk; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for this improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is established in order to provide for said improvement: XERXES AVENUE NORTH SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -19 2. The lans and specifications p p s for Contract 1990 -I for said improvement project prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total amount of such bid. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The Estimated Project Costs are as follows: Total Estimated Construction Cost (incl. 15% contingency) $30,746.00 Engineering (10 %) 3,074.60 Administration (1 %) 307.70 Legal (1 %) 307.70 Total Estimated Project Cost $34,436.00 5. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1990 -19 shall be done in the MSA Fund No. 2611. 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 8/27/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM SEH, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO T.H. 100 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OF L-BLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) At the August 13 City Council meeting, City staff presented a status report regarding MNDOT study of design alternates for reconstruction of T.H. 100 from Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley to 50th Avenue in Brooklyn Center. At that meeting the Council expressed general dissatisfaction with the alternatives developed by MNDOT for the France Avenue area. While City staff is also less than enthusiastic regarding any of the alternatives developed by MNDOT, we have not been able to suggest a better plan. However, this doesn't mean that it's not possible to develop better alternatives. Accordingly, we wish to suggest the possibility of hiring an independent traffic engineering specialist to review the matter, evaluate MNDOT's alternatives, and attempt to describe one or more new alternative concepts. For that purpose we have requested and received the attached proposal form SEH, Inc. We recommend that the City accept this proposal from SEH, Inc., at a cost not -to- exceed $4000 without further authorization. Mr. Glen Van Wormer of SEH, Inc. would take the lead role in conducting this review. We believe that Mr. Van Wormer has shown excellent professional competence with creative problem- solving recommendations on many of the City's projects. In addition, his work is highly respected by MNDOT, so that any of his recommendations will receive MNDOT's full attention. At the same time, we wish to caution the Council to limit its expectations, i.e., it may not be possible to improve on the alternatives developed by MNDOT. There are no guarantees ... The 1990 General Fund budget for the Engineering Division No. 41 includes an • appropriation of $5000 for consulting services. The purpose of that appropriation is to provide funds for this type of special study. At this time, the unencumbered balance for this budget item is $3837. Since the estimated cost of SEH's study is $3800, with a not -to- exceed limit of $4000, we recommend that the costs for the study, if it is ordered by the Council, be paid from the regular budget (i.e. - no special appropriation of funds is needed to cover this study). J � I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM SEH, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO T.H. 100 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) is in the process of developing preliminary design concepts for the upgrading of T.H. 100 between Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley and 50th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the alternative design concepts developed to date by MNDOT appear to be more disruptive to existing development in the France Avenue area than necessary, and it is the City Council's desire to further review the alternatives developed by MNDOT and to explore other alternatives; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained a proposal from SEH, Inc. to review existing design concepts and to explore other alternatives at a cost not -to- exceed $4000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal submitted by SEH, Inc. to provide professional services relating to design concepts for improvements to T.H. 100 at a cost not -to- exceed $4000 is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with said firm on the basis of said proposal. 2. All costs relating to this work shall be charged to the General Fund, Engineering Division 41, Object 4310. 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. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST PAUL MINNESOTA 55110 612490-2000 GO August 22, 1990 Mr. Sy Knapp, Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Sy: We would be pleased to assist the City in its review of concept plans and consideration of other alternatives for the Trunk Highway 100 upgrading in the southern portion of Brooklyn Center. We travel this roadway frequently and have often tried to envision solutions to the existing signalized intersections. We view this project as a welcome challenge to try to come up with the best solution to the many demands for access and circulation. The following is our Work Program, Estimated Fees and Schedule: Work Program We will attempt to provide reviews and develop alternatives in an efficient manner, working within the Mn/DOT framework. Our work program will consist of the following: A. Review Existing Information To reduce repetition of work that has already been performed and to gain a better understanding of the project, we will obtain and review the following information: 1. Aerial photographs and concept layouts currently being considered by Mn/DOT. 2. Alternatives that were reviewed previously. We understand that four alternatives are still being considered. Access to other alternatives that were reviewed may reduce the amount of work we go through in developing additional concepts. 3. Traffic volume information for the existing roadway and the 20 -year traffic projections. We can obtain this information directly from Mn/DOT or from the City if you have it in your possession. B. Identify Additional Concerns Following our review of existing data, we will meet with the City to establish ground SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Mr. Sy Knapp Page 2 August 22, 1990 rules. Roads which need to have internal connections, utility concerns, or other local issues or known problems should be defined so we do not waste time. C. Develop Concepts These may be revisions of other concepts or totally new ideas. Since we do not have access to the existing alternatives, we are not certain if the general thoughts we had during our travels have been explored. The concepts will be drawn to sketch stage with enough clarity to be understood and discussed. D. Concept Review We will then review the concepts, with your office, citing advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we will also review the existing pros and cons of the four alternates that are being considered and discuss potential revisions to improve them from the City's view point. E. Present Concept to Mn/DOT After a suitable concept is developed, we will refine the drawing for more clarity and present it to Mn/DOT in a meeting with yourself and Mn/DOT officials. Our goal is that Mn/DOT would accept the concept and develop it further. Estimated Fees We have carefully reviewed each of the steps in the work program and assigned hours to individuals within the department. We estimate the work effort required to complete this project to be: 20 hours of work for myself: 40 hours for a design engineer or senior technician; and less than 10 hours of drafting. Estimated costs of these hours is $3,800. Recognizing that we are working with concepts we have not yet reviewed and assuming that we can develop new concepts, we feel that $4,000 represents a cost - not -to- exceed figure. We would not exceed that figure without prior authorization. However, we hope that through efficiencies we would be able to provide the service at a lower cost. We will provide the services on a cost plus basis with the fee based on actual hours worked times a multiplier plus reimbursement of actual expenses. r` Mr. Sy Knapp Page 3 August 22, 1990 Schedule We also understand that you are under a very tight time frame to review the concepts and get responses to Mn/DOT so they can maintain their schedule. We have the ability to begin our work during the last week in August and, assuming we can obtain all the traffic volume and concept design information immediately, feel that we can return a product to you within two to four weeks. Please review the project approach outlined. If you feel the approach is proper and the time table and budget are acceptable, call us and we will make arrangements to obtain the traffic volume and concept design information. We look forward to working with you on this challenging conceptual project. Respectfully submitted, Short- Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. Glen Van Wormer, P.E. Manager, Transportation Department GVW /smb Accepted and Approved by City of Brooklyn Center Approved by City Council on , 1990 Approved by Mayor Approved by City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8Z27/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: j {/ SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ''�'` No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. Recommendation It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/27/90) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Shade Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove shade trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these shade trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The shade trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER ROBERT /CONNIE MAVIS 5524 LYNDALE AVE N 299 ROBERT /CONNIE MAVIS 5524 LYNDALE AVE N 404 DERRYL /KELLY HILL 5201 ELEANOR LANE 492 DONALD BRUNSELL 6526 EWING AVE N 503 NGHIA TRUNG LE 3412 62ND AVE N 504 JOHN /LEONA LESCAULT 3507 62ND AVE N 505 MILTON SELANDER 6143 KYLE AVE N 506 WM. /IRENE BARTRAM 6107 BROOKLYN BLVD 507 GERALD DOUCETTE 5949 ZENITH AVE N 508 MARIAN HARRIS 5836 UPTON AVE N 509 CITY OF B.C. 5836 UPTON AVE N 510 K. TALL /J. PETERSON 5913 VINCENT AVE N 511 JAMES STARKWEATHER 5306 CAMDEN AVE N 512 JAMES STARKWEATHER 5306 CAMDEN AVE N 513 EVA MC CABE 5706 NORTHPORT DR 514 DENNIS O'BRIEN 6536 CHOWEN AVE N 515 EDWIN /SANDRA BECK 5507 CHOWEN AVE N 516 LOIS ISENBERG 6009 ALDRICH AVE N 517 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 518 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 519 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 520 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 521 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 522 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 523 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 524 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 525 CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 526 THOMAS KING 5732 HUMBOLDT AVE N 527 THOMAS KING 5732 HUMBOLDT AVE N 528 JILL MELEK 5619 KNOX AVE N 529 LYNNE KASPER 4901 ABBOTT AVE N 530 RESOLUTION NO. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER RICHARD ED 3301 49TH AVE N 531 FRANCES LUNACEK 5201 XERXES AVE N 532 GLENN HARLESS 3006 51ST AVE N 533 JOHN TAYLOR 5634 KNOX AVE N 534 STEVEN /MARLA GEMAR 5540 KNOX AVE N 535 TODD /CAROL SULLIVAN 5545 GIRARD AVE N 536 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LN PARK 537 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LN PARK 538 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LN PARK 539 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LN PARK 540 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LN PARK 541 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LN PARK 542 ROBERT HOPP 3501 72ND AVE N 543 K. NESCO /P. HARTLEY 3806 VIOLET AVE 544 CITY OF B.C. NORTHPORT PARK 545 GREGORY LITZAU 6733 PERRY AVE 546 REBECCA CHILDERS 6806 REGENT AVE 547 LYLE SCHMICKLE 6724 WILLOW LN N 548 COURTNEY /JULIE SMITH 1313 57TH AVE N 549 SYLVESTER /IRMA HAASE 1300 57TH AVE N 550 SHIRLEY WERRONEN 6814 YORK PLACE 551 SHIRLEY WERRONEN 6814 YORK PLACE 552 ROBERT SAWYER 6812 ORCHARD AVE N 553 ROBERT BRADLEY 6120 EARLE BROWN DR 554 ROBERT BRADLEY 6120 EARLE BROWN DR 555 VIRGINIA HEDBERG 5530 LYNDALE AVE 556 VIRGINIA HEDBERG 5530 LYNDALE AVE 557 CITY OF B.C. RIVERSIDE PARK 558 GARY /REBECCA CRASS 2913 MUMFORD RD 559 CITY OF B.C. 6850 WILLOW LANE 560 MARY PASCOE 7060 PERRY AVE N 561 BARBARA RADEMAKER 7025 PERRY AVE N 562 GORDON AMUNDSON 5306 64TH AVE N 563 JAMES BABEKUHL 5901 EWING AVE N 564 PHILIP FERBUYT 5925 EWING AVE N 565 JAMES/YVONNE LYONS 5303 EMERSON AVE N 566 ROBERT KOSKINEN 5305 EMERSON AVE N 567 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owners will receive a second written notice that will give them (5) business days in which to contest the determination of City Council by requesting a hearing in writing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. 4. All removal costs, including legal, financing and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor r 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 8/27/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Cj ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1) Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 90015 submitted by Teasdale and Associates, LTD. 2) Resolution Directing the Housing Commission and Planning Commission to further study the issues and advise the City Council on the need to provide large family housing in Brooklyn Center. DEPARTMENT APPRO Si ature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report omments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _X At the August 13, 1990 meeting the City Council considered Planning Commission Application No. 90015 which was submitted by Teasdale and Associates, LTD. requesting a variance to allow more than 10% of the Garden City Court apartment buildings to be three - bedroom units. Following public hearing and deliberation on this matter, the City Council determined that the Standards for Variance contained in the Zoning Ordinance were not met in this particular case and directed the staff to prepare two resolutions regarding this matter. The first resolution requested was for the purpose of denying this Planning Commission application while the second resolution was for the purpose of directing the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission to further study the need to provide large family housing in Brooklyn Center. These two resolutions have been prepared and are offered for the City Council's consideration. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the two resolutions which have been prepared for the City Council regarding these matters. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 90015 SUBMITTED BY TEASDALE AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 90015 was submitted by Harold Teasdale and Associates, seeking a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance to allow more than 10% of the dwelling units at the Garden City Court Apartment complex (3407 -3417 65th Avenue North) to be three - bedroom units; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at its June 14 and July 26, 1990 regular meetings during which meetings a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the variance request was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon reflection on the testimony offered and the reports submitted by staff, voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance request; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variance request at its August 13, 1990 regular meeting and held a public hearing, receiving testimony regarding the application and a report of the Planning Commission's action; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing on Application No. 90015, the applicant, Mr. Harold Teasdale, acknowledged publicly that a case for a variance could not be made in this instance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reflected upon the testimony offered, the written material submitted regarding Application No. 90015 and particularly the Standards for Variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 90015 submitted by Harold Teasdale and Associates for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance, be denied on the grounds that the Standards for Variance are not met particularly in consideration of the following: 1. The limitation of Section 35 -400 subsection 1c of the Zoning Ordinance that no more than 10% of the units in a multi - family building may have more than two bedrooms allows the property owner reasonable use of his property and does not create a hardship for the property owner. RESOLUTION NO. 2. The circumstances upon which the variance request p � is based (namely, the Garden City Court Apartment complex containing 66 two - bedroom units and 6 one - bedroom units) are not unique to this parcel of land, but are common generally to other apartment developments within the City. 3. The limitations of the buildings and land that comprise the Garden City Court Apartments were created by the original developer of the property and were not created by the provisions of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. 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. qh Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSING COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO FURTHER STUDY THE ISSUES AND ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE NEED TO PROVIDE LARGE FAMILY HOUSING IN BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have recently reviewed and denied a variance request that would allow more than 10% of the dwelling units in a multiple family dwelling to have three or more bedrooms on the grounds that the Standards for Variance contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance were not met; and WHEREAS, this consideration caused the City Council to re- examine this long standing ordinance provision, which was adopted in 1973 following a long and extensive study; and WHEREAS, in adapting such an ordinance provision the City Council determined that it was not desirable from a density standpoint nor was it a good environment to house large families in multiple family walkup style apartment units; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has long been, and is still concerned, about addressing the needs of providing affordable housing for all people within the community as evidenced by its cooperating and providing subsidized townhouses such as Ewing Square, Victoria Townhomes, the Ponds, etc. and by providing the second highest number of Section 8 Rent Assistance units in the North Metro area; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center appears to have a surplus of single - family "starter homes" which could conceivably well meet the needs of large families rather than to increase the number of three or more bedroom units in less desirable multi family walkup style apartments; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is necessary to examine projected demographics to determine the need for large bedroom apartment units in the coming years and whether indeed there is a real market for such large family rental apartment units that cannot be served by single - family type housing; and WHEREAS, the City has an interest in attempting to match housing inventory to the housing market so as to avoid the blight and deterioration that can result from an inappropriate housing inventory; and WHEREAS, there may well be a need to provide other amenities to these apartment units if they are converted to provide large family dwellings; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, there is a need as well to determine what is the future of such federal and state programs that are encouraging apartment conversions. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that these issues need to be reviewed in a comprehensive fashion so the City Council can consider what is in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center in terms of zoning and housing policy with regard to providing large family subsidized housing in the City of Brooklyn Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to refer these issues to the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission for further review and comment to advise the City Council on the best housing and zoning policy for the City to address these issues in a comprehensive and thorough manner which is consistent with all requirements of state and federal law. 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 L : 7 G Agenda Item Number (DDDRCC) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS AGREEMENT WITH FIRST BANKS rrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrtsrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrr: rrsrfrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr DEPARTM T APPROVAL• 0 �W• �..a"'� Director of Finance Signature - tine MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached To speed the transfer of money between banks when investing to maximize interest earnings, the City uses wire transfer services. We have been doing this for years, but have never set up any formal written procedures with the .bank. .The independent auditors have recommended that we do so. In response to that recommendation, I have prepared the attached resolution which would authorize the City Manager to establish written control procedures. These control procedures would formalize proce- dures that are currently being used and add some new internal control features. New control features would include providing the bank with an approved list of authorized destination accounts and providing "call- back" procedures, whereby, for transfers to accounts not listed, the bank would be required to call the City Manager to authorize the transfer. The City Treasurer and the City Deputy Treasurer would be allowed to make transfers to listed destination accounts, using a bank security code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION --------------- - - - -- Staff recommends the adoption of the attached resolution. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL -------------------------------------------- Pass the attached resolution authorizing execution of transfer of funds agreement with First Banks. This will allow the City Manager to set up the internal control procedures. 91 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS AGREEMENT WITH FIRST BANKS ----------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, from time to time, the City of Brooklyn Center orally requests First Banks, a national banking association (Bank), to transfer funds to other banks for credit to persons or corporations designated by the City. So that the Bank may have standing instructions upon which to act pursuant to oral requests for transfer of funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Gerald G. Splinter, the City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute the Domestic and International Funds (Wire) Transfer Agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center with First Banks, a national banking association (Bank) providing for telephone requests for the transmission of funds belonging to the City upon the terms and conditions set forth in said agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the authority conferred herein shall continue in full force and effect until written notice of its revocation shall be received by said Bank at its office. 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. '' 1► First Banks � Members First Bank System DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL FUNDS (WIRE) TRANSFER AGREEMENT This Customer (corporation /bank) The City of Brooklyn Center (the "Customer ") from time to time requests by means of ephonic, telegraphic, oral or written requests or orders, the transfer of funds from the Customer's account(s) maintained at M rst Ban ks a national banking association ("Bank ") to other banks for credit to persons/ accounts designated by this Customer. In consideration Qf the ga (�s acting upon tele�{�phic, telephonic, oral, and written requests for the transfer of funds, commencing HUgUS C �! 19 7U , the Customer hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions (including those on Attachment A) and authorizes the Bank to: 1. Honor, execute and charge to the Customer's account(s) at the Bank, all telegraphic, telephonic, oral, or written requests or orders for the transfer of funds, when such requests or orders are received from anyone giving the security code prescribed by the Bank pursuant to Attachment A. 2. Transfer funds from specific Customer account(s) with the Bank to any specified Customer bank account(s), whether such account(s) are with the Bank or other bank(s). 3. Transfer funds from Customer account(s) with the Bank to any account(s) of a third party, whether such third party account(s) are with the Bank or other bank(s). 4. Record all telephonic instructions received by the Bank's Wire Transfer Department from the Customer and retain the recordings for sixty -one (61) days following such requests. The Customer agrees to report any discrepancies between the Customer's records of these transactions and the Bank statement to you in writing within thirty days after the statement date. 5. Act upon all transfer requests on the date received, when received prior to the deadlines required by the Bank, and to use any means for the transmission of funds the Bank may consider suitable. The Bank reserves the right to change the deadlines upon notice. It is further understood that this funds transfer service is provided as a service and convenience to this Customer and in consideration of obligations of the Bank hereunder, the Customer: a. Releases the Bank from responsibility for any inaccuracy, interruption or delay in transmission and for claims occasioned in whole or in part by any circumstances beyond the Bank's control. b. Assumes full responsibility for all transfers made by the Bank in good faith in accordance with the above procedures and agrees that the Bank shall be conclusively deemed to have exercised ordinary care if it has followed these procedures or if the Customer has not followed them. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE BANK BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR LOSS OF PROFIT, NOTWITHSTANDING NOTICE TO BANK OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR LOSSES. c. Agrees to supply the Bank any information that the Bank may reasonably request including but not limited to: money amounts, accounts to be affected, date of transfers, supplemental instructions, and further evidence of any authorized representative's authority to transfer funds or to do any other act contemplated under these procedures. d. Agrees that the Bank may change these procedures upon written notice to the Customer. e. Agrees to notify the Bank in writing when any employee authorized to transfer funds leaves the employment of the Customer and that any subsequent security code changes will be performed only at the Customer's request. f. Agrees that the Bank reserves the right to refuse to execute transfer requests for the following reasons: (1) transfers against uncollected or insufficient funds. (2) transfers in excess of transaction limits, if any. This authority shall remain in force and effect until either party shall give five (5) business days written notice. This agreement supercedes any previous agreements. Dated: August 27 19 90 City of Brooklyn Center Accepted: (Customer) B Gerald G S linter (Bank) Title: City Manager By: Title: Date: 063 -0017 NS (03 -87C) (WHITE BANK COPY) (YELLOW CUSTOMER COPY) (PINK CREDIT FILE COPY) First Ban Members First Bank System WIRE TRANSFER AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT A 1. Security Code The Customer shall elect one of the following levels of security: —�_ One security code for all DDA accounts listed below. One security code for each DDA account listed below. Multiple security codes, one for each individual initiating funds transfers. Desired number of codes: In any case, the Bank will accept and execute transfer requests from anyone representing himself /herself to be from the Customer and giving the Customer's DDA account number accompanied by the appropriate, assigned security code. The Bank will maintain a listing of the security code(s) presently assigned to each Customer. The Customer has sole responsibility for distribution and use of the security code(s). The security code(s) may be changed upon five business days advance written notice of either the Customer or the Bank or, in the case of a change by Customer, upon acknowledgement of such change by the Bank. Customer requests code(s) to be assigned for use with these DDA accounts: Account Number Account Name 902 - 7002 -394 City of Brooklyn Center Investment Trust Fund 2. Telephone Notification The customer may establish standing instructions for telephone notification of incoming transfers. There is an additional charge for this service. The customer: X does not request telephone notification. requests telephone notification. 3. Transaction Limits The Customer may establish a maximum dollar limit for each transaction. Transactions exceeding Customer - established limits will result in a call back to the Customer for verification of the transfer's validity and author- ization to release the transfer. There is an additional charge for this service. The Customer: X does not wish to establish transaction limits. wishes to establish a maximum transaction limit of $ 4. Call -Back Parties In the event that the Bank has a question concerning a transfer request, please indicate below at least two individuals as "call- back" parties. These are the individuals the Bank will contact to verify any information in question, or to authorize any transactions exceeding any customer - established dollar limits, if any. Individuals listed below should not necessarily be those that initiate funds transfers. Name Title Phone Number Paul W. Holmlund Director of Finance /City Treasurer (612) 569 -3353 Charles R. Hansen Assistant Director of Finance/ (612) 569 -3345 SEE ATTACHMENT B Deputy City Treasurer 5. WO -Monze anges Please indicate below at least three individuals, who may request (in writing) changes pertaining to: security codes, telephone notification, transaction limits, callback parties and repeat codes. Any requests not signed by one of these individuals will not be processed. Name Signature Gerald G. Splinter Paul W. Holmlund Charles R. Hansen City of Brooklyn Center Customer Gerald G. S plinte r P Y• linte Dated: August 27 ' 19 90 Title: City Manager 063-0018 NS (07 -89R) WHITE - Original CANARY - Customer Copy PINK - IBG Copy (CBCWTA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER (CUSTOMER) FIRST BANKS (BANK) WIRE TRANSFER AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT B In addition to the controls established in Attachment A, the following controls are hereby agreed to and placed upon the Domestic and International Funds (Wire) Transfer Agreement: 1. The following persons are the only persons authorized to request transfers: Paul W. Holmlund Director of Finance /City Treasurer Telephone No. (612) 569 -3353 Charles R. Hansen Assistant Director of Finance /Deputy City Treasurer Telephone No. (612) 569 -3345 2. The persons listed in Item 1 are authorized to request wire transfers to the following account: Marquette Bank Minneapolis Further Credit to Marquette Bank Brookdale Further Credit to City of Brooklyn Center Account No. 101 -0016 3. If a request is made to wire transfer funds by persons listed in Item 1 to any account other then that listed in Item 2, then the following person must be called to approve the request: Gerald G. Splinter City Manager Telephone No. (612) 569 -3309 Dated: August 27 ' 19 90 City of Brooklyn Center Accepted: (Customer) (Bank) By: G erald G. Splinter By Title: City Manager Title: Date: 19 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 cJG Agenda hem Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE BENEFITS FOR NEW POLICE OFFICER DEPT. APPROVAJL ? Signatur -title James Lindsay, Chief of Police * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S IEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) • The recent testing to replace a separated police officer left the department with a recently separated officer in the number one position. The department was able to hire Curtis Lund, who had left the department in January 1990. Lund has seven years experience outside Brooklyn Center and five and one -half with the Brooklyn Center Police Department. His experience is a great benefit to the department as we will not have to go through a training process and he has a complete uniform issue which will enable us to put him out on the street immediately. At the time he left, Lund had just reached the point of earning three weeks vacation per year. We would like to start him at this level when he rejoins the city. Also, we are requesting he start with a 96 hour block of sick leave which can be used during the first year, but must be earned before additional hours accumulate. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve the resolution authorizing sick leave and vacation benefits for the new police officer. N 0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SICK LEAVE AND VACATION BENEFITS FOR THE NEW POLICE OFFICER WHEREAS, the city council determines it is appropriate to authorize certain sick leave and vacation benefits for the new police officer, Curtis Lund, based on the facts of his experience as a police officer and his previous work record with the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the city manager is hereby authorized to include the following benefits in the conditions of appointment for new police officer, Curtis Lund: 1. a 96 hour block of sick leave which can be used during the first year of employment, but which must be earned before additional hours accumulate; and 2. vacation accrual to begin with three weeks vacation per year, giving credit for the first five years worked with 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date _ . 4 7 Agenda hem Number J K REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE OF TITLE DEPT. APPROVA . Signature title - James Lindsay, Chief of Police MANAGER' R IEW /RECOMMENDATION: •' �.; No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) • On September 13, 1990, George Nass will retire from his code enforcement officer position with the police department. Since the first of the year, Nass has been working full -time in the property room. Before the recruiting for a replacement is started, the department would like to change the title of the position. The pay scale and all benefits would remain the same. The reason for the title change is basically to take this position out of the cadet to code enforcement to police officer training program which is underway in the department. This position now has no "code enforcement" duties and would provide no training in law enforcement for these individuals. Also, we look at these positions as more temporary as the candidates will be progressing through them. We would like the property manager position to be more of a long -term commitment for the P erson selected. RECOMMENDATION: The e C t Council a pprove the resolution C pp eso ution authorizing the title change. q ` Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING 1990 PAY PLAN WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 89 -251 sets wages and salaries for calendar year 1990; and WHEREAS, there has been a shift in responsibilities of one police department Code Enforcement Officer to include full - time management of the department's property room; and WHEREAS, it is the City Council's intent to reflect these job duty changes in the 1990 pay plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1990 pay plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. Technical - secretarial Schedule D is amended to add the position of Property Manager with a grade range of T14A to T18C and hourly wage range of $9.17 to $11.16. 2. The police department section of the 1990 Positions Authorized, Schedule A, is amended to add one position of Property Manager, which will not be exempt from overtime, and change the number of positions authorized for Code Enforcement Officer from two to one. 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 8 '' 27 -90 Agenda Item Number C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Political Signs ** t�t��*** �*****.#***** * # *� * *f� # * * *+► *�t *t # * *� # # * *t * ** *tom+► * *t # # * * * # * * * * * « * * * #t # * *t ## *,►tit : : #* DEPARTMENT APP 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 _) On July 23, 1990 the City Council held a first reading of an ordinance amending the City's Sign Ordinance regarding political or • campaign signs. The state legislature adopted a new law this past spring which prevents any municipality from regulating the size of noncommercial signs displayed in a state general election year during the time from August 1 until ten days following the state general election. Noncommercial signs are primarily, although not exclusively, political or campaign signs. The new law and how it effects the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance was a subject of discussion by the City Council at its meeting on June 11, 1990. At that time the Council decided to amend its Sign Ordinance to be consistent with the new state law., however, the Council chose not to have this provision effect any other elections not being held 'during a' state °general election year. Therefore, the new provision will not effect elections such as charter elections, school board elections, referendum, etc. held at other times than August 1 through ten days following the state general election. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following the public hearing scheduled for Monday evening, adopt this ordinance amendment. ,L CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the — 27t - .h day of ALgust , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 34 regarding political signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING POLITICAL SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS. 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit f. Portable and freestanding political signs for a period of not more than sixty (60) days before and ten (10) days after an election provided no one sign is greater than sixteen (16) square feet in area, except that there shall be no limitation on the size of Political or other noncommercial signs during the period from August 1 in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election. Freestanding political signs may be installed only upon private property with the permission of the property owner who shall be responsible for removal thereof. The candidate whose candidacy is promoted by an improperly placed or otherwise illegal political sign shall be held responsible therefor. 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.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/27/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN DALE AND DAVIES 2ND ADDITION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: r f SY KNAPP, DIR03TOR O `PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) The plat of DALE AND DAVIES 2ND ADDITION, recorded in 1977, dedicated the public right -of -way for Grimes Avenue North and easements around the platted lots (see attached Map 1). Grimes Avenue North was vacated by Ordinance No. 84 -3 and the existing lots were subsequently replatted as TENNIS ACRES TWO in 1984 (see attached Map 2). The attached letter indicates the desire of the current owner, Northwest Racquet, Swim & Health Clubs, Inc., to vacate those interior easements, formerly associated with the lot lines of DALE AND DAVIES 2ND ADDITION. The easements adjacent to the public rights -of -way, Lakebreeze Avenue North and Azelia Avenue North, will be retained. The private utility companies, Northern States Power, Minnegasco, U.S. West, and King Video Cable, are currently reviewing this request. City staff are also reviewing locations of City utilities on the site to determine if the City should retain any portions of this easement. City Council Action Required An ordinance is provided for consideration and first reading by the City Council. If the first reading is conducted, the proposed ordinance will be published along with a notice of public hearing. After the second reading and public hearing, the City Council would then consider final adoption of the ordinance. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 19_, at p.m, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Utility and Drainage Easements in Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, DALE AND DAVIES 2ND ADDITION. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 1 BLOCK 2 DALE AND DAVIES 2ND ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That all drainage and utility easements over, under and across Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot -1, Block 2 DALE AND DAVIES 2ND ADDITION according to the recorded plat thereof, as dedicated on said plat: except those parts of said easement which were rededicated on the plat TENNIS ACRES TWO, according to the recorded plat thereof' are hereby vacated Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date FA E G R E & B E N S O N 2200 NORWEST CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3901 612/336 -3000 SUITE 1150, 8400 TOWER FACSIMILE 336 -3026 2500 REPUBLIC PLAZA 8400 NORMANDALE LAKE BOULEVARD 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 5 543 7 - 107 6 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4004 612 /921-220 0 303/59Z-5900 FACSIMILE 921 -2244 FACSIMILE 592 -5693 SUITE 500 10 EASTCHEAP 1140 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W. LONDON EC3M IET, ENGLAND WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 -4001 071/62 202/728 -0952 FACSIMILE 728 -0957 July 31, 1990 FACSIMILE 623 -3227 VIA MESSENGER City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attention: Mark Maloney City Engineer Re: 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North Brooklyn Center Dear Mr. Maloney: Enclosed in connection with the subject matter is a copy of recent survey which was done for Northwest Racquet Swim and Health Clubs, Inc. You will note that I have highlighted drainage and utility easements on the survey which are drainage and utility easements from the previous plat, called Dale and Davies 2nd Addition; these easements were dedicated to the public on the plat, and since the property has been replatted we wish to vacate those easements. The legal description for the easements to be vacated is Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Dale and Davies 2nd Addition. Please contact me at 336 -3535 if you need more information with regards to vacating these easements. Thank you. Sincerely, Lori L. Howe Legal Assistant LLH /pkk Enclosure cc: Karin J. Birkeland 5845w 1 ' DALE AND DAVIES 2nd ADDITION M m L /I J 7- 71,74 _ o — m� �; ErcE�rip ✓ 30 30 �- — -- -- ,zSB. 33 — — — — � \ --• - -o — — — .20B.9S — — — — % 9a. /9 _ _ __ � \Q �� QJ � -21 ►\ � � � � I sue, ., i mj �\ I wEST 3o /s � J I 57 5!0 n 5 i To — �74.3G - - -- - — — �- - -- eh s ag-14"4; 27 9?¢ 4; X i✓nrwiu� r, y �iy��- o�' -cvoy � * 'MAP 1 o` �Pr ADC / //l�G'/•;� /Yn. .'9L.4,!Sf; \ TENNIS ACRES TWO :d r i3i;_i_�'i_ EASEMENTS TO BE RETAINED ^;v;_ ;d - -- 5zr.bu WEST Droinaye f Uo y fosemenl / 60 II h 9 2 v /0 n � �ee n � C ti 60 \� ��lJ !A.('EUKEEZE ACS iuN ,dnlhrq,n.n „ql I� ��0 LOT i � I LAKE - BBC EE ZE AO� /T /oN 107 /8 WEST '63 30 r !49.74 Y WEST ' - - - -- f Bo.00 II o AZELIA AVE. ,o�n Y 20 3 , I 13 60 o a wE_sr�d EASEMENTS TO BE VACATBD� u� r r i., , ��•.,r', �o BLOCK 9r� cu 4 1 ��O /o�nage \ I C r) Al _ F I / 01{ { �� X01 _. o voF�r.d b D— n» ' LAKESIDE AVE. z,p. /g ; 3 1 p0 '- 1 r . 1 I �� c •� l l \ o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT ___ ___ __.. __ _ BEARINGS SIIOWN ARE ASSUMED 446.32 EAST � • fz E �Lrne porallcl wlh The So{ilh l ne of LAK£HRUZ£ AVO/ 110 = 3 j 15 1 0•.7� Q �. \ D 2 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 16, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 26 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 26, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioner Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairperson Malecki. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90021 (Brenda Noyed) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a home hair care salon in the basement of the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90021 attached). Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the limit of 10 persons in the basement. The Planner explained that this came from a Building Code limit, that over 10 occupants would require a second means of egress. The Secretary added that this was because of the commercial nature of the use in the basement. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to an egress window. The Secretary responded that one is not needed though it would not be discouraged either. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the permits and the required ventilation for the beauty shop area. The Planner answered that there are state requirements for ventilation which must be met when a state inspector reviews the premises for compliance for the shop license requirements. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether she had anything to add and whether she could comment on the ventilation requirements. Ms. Noyed responded that the state simply requires "proper 8-16-90 1 ventilation ". She stated that she would check into those requirements. Commissioner Bernards asked Ms. Noyed whether she worked in a shop P right now. Ms. Noyed responded that she did work in a shop in � Brooklyn Park. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the sink existed in the basement a ement at this time. Ms. Noyed responded that it was not in at present, but would be added if the permit is granted. _PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90021) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that his main concern was parking. He noted that the City Council had recently looked at home occupations and asked where that discussion was going. The Secretary responded that staff have not been directed to prepare any ordinance changes. He stated that the subject was discussed at a Council meeting in July and that an article appeared in the Brooklyn Center Post News recently. He stated that any direction to alter the ordinance would come through the Planning Commission for review. He added that there is a lot of history behind the City's home occupation ordinance, that it regulates what people can do with their property. He stated that the City's ordinance is a compromise between an extreme on the one hand of doing what anyone wants with one's property or on the other extreme of allowing no business use at all within a residential district. He stated that he had seen many beauty shops come and go over the years and that he had only heard complaints once. He stated that he did not think the proposed beauty shop would pose a problem. Commissioner Sander asked whether there would be an employee. The Secretary responded that an employee was not comprehended by this application and that Ms. Noyed would have to bring an application back to the Planning Commission and City Council for an amendment to the special use permit if she ever wished to add an employee. Commissioner Sander expressed concern regarding possible traffic problems if an employee were part of the business. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90021 (Brenda No ed Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend approval of Application No. 99021, subject to the following conditions: 8-16-90 2 I 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty /barber shop with a single operator. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. On- street parking is expressly prohibited. 4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her property prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on an appointment -only basis. 6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one time shall not exceed 10. 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and complete all required building improvements prior to issuance of the special use permit. 8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO 90023 (Alan Chazin) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by Alan Chazin for a lot area or density variance at the North Lyn Apartments at 6511 -6521 Humboldt Avenue North to allow the existing 102 unit complex on a smaller land parcel in order to subdivide off .7 acre of land for an office development. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90023 attached). The Secretary added a number of other points during and after his review of the staff report. He noted that he had talked with the City Assessor and that the City Assessor questioned whether the tax 8 -16 -90 3 benefit from the proposed office development would be $40,000 to $50,000 per year. He stated that he had also talked with the City i Attorney who has expressed some concern about whether the Standards for a Variance are met in this case. He stated that staff have not evaluated the Planned Unit Development idea to any great extent. He stated that the City Attorney had expressed concern that the standards may not be met and that possibly a PUD should be considered. The Secretary went on to state that he did not believe anything larger than a 9,300 sq. ft. office building should be allowed even if a variance is granted. Noting other comparable situations around the City, the Secretary acknowledged that a number of other variances might be granted. He asked what affect this would have on the rights of other apartment owners who are living within the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted the three -plex at 4010 65th Avenue North which has been an enforcement problem almost since it was built because they have tried to add a fourth unit on land which is only large enough for three dwelling units. He stated that he did not want to complicate that situation by granting a variance here. He stated that he was not sure how to look at this proposal as a PUD, but that perhaps that needs further consideration. Commissioner Mann asked how many excess units if the land were subdivided off and the variance granted. The Planner responded that it would be 10 or 11 units over the allowable maximum. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that if a variance were granted, the apartment complex would be allowed to continue without being a nonconforming use. Commissioner Bernards asked what recreational facilities existed on the site. The Secretary responded that he was not aware of any. Mr. Alan Chazin pointed out that there is an outdoor pool on the property. Chairperson Malecki noted the objective of consolidating land along Brooklyn Boulevard and requiring a minimum of one acre of land for office developments. She asked whether this would be a requirement here. The Secretary acknowledged that the .7 acre parcel would be less than the acre requirement, but that the one acre area is required in the C1 zone, not the R5 zone. He recommended that the Commission not take an acre of land from the apartment site. Commissioner Sander summarized some of the requests being sought, namely a variance on density, a special use permit for offices, and a special use for shared parking. The Secretary stated that he did not recommend that shared parking be allowed. He stated that if the variance were granted he would recommend no shared parking. The Secretary stated that he did not believe that the apartment complex was overcrowded on its main site. He stated that his impression as he traveled by and through the property that the .7 acre area of land is not integral to the apartment complex. 8 -16 -90 4 The 1 P anner reported p ed to the Secretary and the Commission that Section 35 -314 of the Zoning Ordinance does in fact require office developments within the R5 zone to meet the C1 district requirements and that this means that 1 acre of land is in fact required. He added, however, that he did not recommend taking more land away from the apartment complex than is proposed by the applicant. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Sellergren, representative for the applicant, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the office proposal has been discussed with the Secretary and the Planner for about two years. He acknowledged that they had felt that the proposal was for too much office space. He agreed not to push for an 11,700 sq. ft. office building tonight, but showed the Commission a layout for a 9,300 sq. ft. office building which would fit on the property. Mr. Sellergren stated that the owners, the Chazins, have looked at the land area left over by their development for 20 years since it was originally built. He stated that they wished to make use of it in some economical way. He then showed the Commission a schematic drawing of an office building which they would like to build on the site. He added that the Chazins own about 500 apartment units within the City and they have been a good citizen, keeping their properties well maintained. Mr. Sellergren went on to state that he had ideas for an ordinance amendment in the past, but that staff recommended a variance request as a vehicle for getting the matter considered by the Planning Commission. He stated that the land in question does not really serve the apartment complex. He stated that there would be practical benefits to developing the property. He also stated that he had contacted Barton - Aschman to analyze whether shared parking would work and that Barton - Aschman had concluded that it would work in this case. Mr. Sellergren stated that he felt that the Standards for a Variance can be met in this case and that he would work with the City Attorney on fashioning appropriate language if the Commission was open to a variance action. Mr. Sellergren stated that an office building would be an asset to the community and he urged approval of the variance. He noted the concern regarding precedent and that a PUD may be an option in this case. Commissioner Ainas stated that he personally favored the concept of an office building, but that he did not favor a PUD. He admitted that the letter of the PUD ordinance might permit the type of arrangement proposed by the applicant, but that he did not believe it would meet the intent of the ordinance. He stated that while the 9,300 sq. ft. building would generate less revenue, this would be offset by lower costs. 8 -16 -90 5 The Secretary stated that the staff's discussions with the applicant have not been adversarial, but that both parties have been trying to look at a way to work something out if possible. He asked the Planning Commission direction and added that more time may be needed to arrive at some resolution of the issue. Mr. Sellergren added that the variance request is simply an avenue for getting the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and need not be the vehicle for allowing the development. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. Chazin whether he had anything to add. Mr. Alan Chazin, an owner of the property, pointed out that he and his father owned other properties in the City. He stated that they would build and manage the office building as they have the apartment units in the City. PUBLIC HEARING jApplication No. 90023 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present to comment regarding the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not feel a PUD should be considered, that it would be an abuse in this case. He also stated that he opposed shared parking between the apartment complex and the office building. He stated that he would be in favor of whatever variances would be legal. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Ainas whether the Standards for a Variance are met. Commissioner Ainas responded in the affirmative, but added that he felt the development should be limited to 9,300 sq. ft. of office space. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt that it was unfortunate that when the building was built the site had the appendages. He noted that creates problems for the property owner down the line, but stated that he was not too sympathetic with the variance request. He stated that he felt the property owner would have to live with the previous decision and that he did not feel that the Standards for a Variance were met. He stated that he did not know whether a PUD was appropriate either, but that a variance was not the way he preferred to go. Commissioner Mann stated that she was concerned about setting a precedent. She preferred to make the 5.7 acre parcel conforming by reducing the number of units and that perhaps recreational facilities could be added within the building in place of the units. 8 -16 -90 6 Commissioner Holmes stated that he tended to side with Commissioner Ainas. He stated he could see the development possibilities for the site, but he asked whether the City would be getting into a pandora's box by setting a precedent that would be repeated elsewhere. The Secretary stated that this could be a concern. He added that the City could take another look at the request and perhaps approach it from a different angle. He again stated that the Planning Commission does not have to act at this meeting. He stated that he would like to talk to the City Attorney further if a variance was to be granted. He pointed out that the situation up on 69th Avenue North with the Humboldt Court Apartments would allow for the arm of land to be added to another parcel and developed. He stated that the City Attorney had asked him what the City would do if the North Lyn Apartments were being proposed now. He stated that he answered that he would discourage the creation of the arm of land around the service station. He stated that the North Lyn Apartments complex was a good complex and he did not feel that there would be a real problem if the underutilized area in question were developed. He stated that the staff can take another look at the issue and bring something back. He stated that the vacant land area in question has been an issue waiting to happen and that it would have to be addressed someday. He added that he, too, did not want to abuse the PUD ordinance. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was not proposing to grant a variance tonight. He acknowledged that there was work to be done, but stated that he did not like using the PUD option in this case. Mr. Sellergren stated that he was not trying to force an action by the Planning Commission immediately, but asked whether the Planning Commission wanted the applicant and the staff to explore the use of land. Commissioner Sander stated that if a variance is granted, it would open up a can of worms for other properties in town. She stated that she did not feel it met the Standards for a Variance at this time and recommended that staff work on the matter some more. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that the City could consider an ordinance change on the density requirement. Chairperson Malecki stated that that would be chipping away at the City's standards. She added that she was afraid that developers would abuse the situation if they know that a variance might be granted down the road if unutilized areas are left on a site plan. She stated that she was not opposed to the development, but did not want to chip away at the ordinance. The Planner then reminded the Commission that Brooklyn Center is a developed community facing many of the same problems that Minneapolis faces with underutilized land. He stated that there are very few vacant lots left in the City and that the City has to make the best of what it has left at this time. He noted that a recent lot variance in the R2 zone onMorgan Avenue and stated that the City will be dealing with other infill situations much more in the future than it has in the past. 8 -16 -90 7 Chairperson Malecki stated that some people are concerned with the PUD option. The Secretary responded that the staff have not looked at that possibility closely. He stated that variances are intended to deal with these kinds of situations as the report points out. He noted a couple of other similar arms of land in the community and stated that variances might be warranted in those situations also. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was also concerned about setting a precedent, but that he felt a variance was a lesser of two evils. He stated that using a PUD in this situation might be an abuse of the ordinance. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had reservations about the proposal. He stated that he was thinking of the residents near the Garden City Court Apartments and their concern about recreational facilities. He suggested that staff also look at the possibility of utilizing the area for some recreational purpose that might benefit the apartments. The Secretary agreed. He pointed out that both apartment complexes were built at the same density, but that the North Lyn Apartment complex seems to have a better layout even without the .7 acre area of land that the applicants wish to divide off. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 90023 (Alan Chazin) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 90023 and direct staff to study further possible options for the property in question.' Commissioner Bernards asked whether one of the options to be considered was the option he had discussed of adding recreational facilities to the area. The Secretary stated that that was his understanding that that was an option to be considered. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:02 p.m. and resumed at 9:07 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 90022 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone from I -1 to C1A six parcels of land between I94 and Summit Drive and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90022 attached) . The Secretary added that the concern of the City ouncil regarding the C2 Y zoning g g g submitted last year was that it would allow a retail use in the area in question. He stated that the City really does not want retail on the vacant parcels south of the freeway. He stated that 8 -16 -90 8 the ClA zoning would preserve the service /office character of this area. He added that an ordinance amendment passed early this year took most of the C2 uses out of the I -1 zone. Therefore, he concluded, the only uses being taken away now from these parcels with the rezoning were industrial uses. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the property owners had been notified. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. The Planner stated that he had received one call from Ryan Construction Company and that after explaining the application, they had stated there was no objection. Commissioner Mann asked about how the rezoning would affect the possible location of group homes and other institutional uses. The Secretary pointed out some of the vacant industrial sites north of the freeway. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the area in question was within the tax increment financing district. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the proposed rezoning would accelerate or slow down the development of the property. The Secretary stated that neither would happen, but that the market would determine when the property was developed. Commissioner Bernards concluded that it would take more time for the proper development. The Secretary stated that the City did not want to see a shopping center on these vacant parcels north of Summit Drive and south of the freeway. He explained that that was the reason why these parcels were removed from the C2 rezoning initiated last year. The Planner added that last year there was still some market for retail development, though the office market was fairly dead. He added that the entire real estate market is depressed. The Secretary reminded the Commission that one of the concerns last year was about the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, that there might be a proposal to develop that area with a motel and a fast food restaurant. He stated that such a development was not in the City's plan for this area, but that the City did not feel it could deny a special use permit for that kind of use. As a result, the ordinance had to be changed to limit what could be allowed in the I -1 zone. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90022 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to comment on the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann expressed that high -rise development adjacent to the freeway might tend to bury the Earle Brown Farm. The Secretary explained that that possibility was looked at when the Farm was 8 -16 -90 9 developed and that models of office buildings in the area were presented which would show the oss' p able site lines to the Earle Brown Farm. He stated that the lass office g buildings would reflect the Farm and were considered on balance positive. Commissioner Mann asked whether a shopping mall would be allowed in PP g the I -1 zone. The Secretary answered that it used to be until eight months ago. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 90 -2 REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO 90022 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -2. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against; none. The motion passed. The Commission and staff briefly discussed upcoming business. The Secretary also discussed with the Commission the action on the Teasdale application. He explained that further study would be needed on the Housing Policy issues presented by that application. Commissioner Ainas noted that new apartments have to have 3' wide doors and be accessible to the handicapped. The Planner also informed the Commission that a rezoning application might be submitted in the near future by H and E Homes to rezone the Soo Line property from I -2 to R2 to allow for single - family development. ADJOURNMENT Following further brief discussion of various questions there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Chairperson 8 -16 -90 10 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -2 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90022 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 90022 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C1A (Service /Office six parcels of land lying between Summit Drive and Interstate 94 and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on August 16, 1990 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in light of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance, and of the existing pattern of development in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 90022, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The C1A zoning is consistent with the existing land development in the area in question. The present I -1 zoning allows for industrial uses which would be inconsistent with other land uses in this area. 2. All permitted uses in the C1A zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject properties. 3. Since the original I -1 zoning of this land, the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange with the freeway has been constructed which has improved access to the area and made high density development more desirable. 4. The City's interest in quality aesthetics and increased tax base and keeping the character of the area high -rise office will be served by the proposed rezoning. 5. The subject properties will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the C1A district. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -2 6. The location of the six parcels contained in the rezoning application is no longer suited to industrial uses. 7. The rezoning will result in the expansion of a zoning district which is warranted by a) the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the lack of developable land in the ClA district; and c) the best interests of the community. 8. The best long -term use of the parcels in question is high -rise office. 9. In light of the above, it is felt that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Ella Sander and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Ella Sander and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90021 Applicant: Brenda Noyed Location: 4013 58th Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit /Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a family hair care salon in the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by 58th Avenue North on the north, and on the east, south, and west by single - family homes. The home lies on the south side of 58th Avenue in the block between Halifax and June Avenues North. Home beauty and barber shops are allowed in the Rl zone by special use permit. The applicant, Ms. Brenda Noyed, has submitted a letter (attached) in which she describes the proposed home occupation. In it, she states that the salon would be located in the basement, in an area about 11' x 15 Clients would enter and exit the home around the west side of the house and through the back door. The salon would operate on an appointment -only basis and the hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. She points out that the driveway has space for four cars and she plans to install a turnaround if the special use permit is approved. She adds that she feels she can control traffic and parking through appropriate scheduling practices. Ms. Noyed states that she intends to follow strict safety standards, installing smoke detectors, a fire extinguisher, and first aid kit in the salon. Additional lighting for safe passage will also be provided. She notes she plans to install a 2.5 sq. ft. sign identifying the business and a small directional sign on the garage. Ms. Noyed states she has a cosmetologist manager /operator license from the state and adds that she plans to apply for a salon license upon approval of the special use permit. The primary concern we see with this application is parking. It would appear to be a fairly standard home beauty shop and should generate a normal amount of traffic. On- street parking is rarely allowed in conjunction with a home occupation and, in this case, is simply not an option, given the nature of 58th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare. The applicant presently possesses a two -car wide driveway and plans to add a turnaround. These are important requirements as well as careful scheduling and taking customers on an appointment -only basis. If these elements are all provided, we feel the beauty shop can operate normally and safely. Altogether, the application appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 8-16-90 16 90 1 Application No. 90021 continued 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty /barber shop with a single operator. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. On- street parking is expressly prohibited. 4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her property prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday and from 9:00 a . m . to 4:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on an appointment -only basis. 6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one time shall not exceed 10. 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and complete all required building improvements prior to issuance of the special use permit. 8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use permit. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, ` Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -16 -90 2 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90023 Applicant: Alan Chazin Location: 6511 -6521 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a g reater density of apartment units to land area than permitted b ordinance at the North Lyn Apartments, 6511 Y Y P and 6521 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the north by the Berean Evangelical Free Church, on the east by Humboldt Avenue North (Brooklyn Center High School is across the street) , by Duke's Standard service station on the southeast, by Freeway Boulevard on the south (Days Inn is across the street) , and by the Spec. I Industrial Building and Hoffman Engineering on the west. The variance application arises because the applicant, Mr. Alan Chazin, wishes to subdivide off an arm of land adjacent to Freeway Boulevard from the apartment site and develop it as an office site. The resulting land area left for the North Lyn apartments would not meet the land area requirements for the R5 zone (the site is already built to its maximum density and there is virtually no excess for other development). Hence, the request for a variance from the land area requirements contained in Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant's Submittal The applicant's legal representative, Mr. David Sellergren of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren Ltd., has submitted a lengthy letter (attached) in which he describes the site, outlines the proposal and addresses the issues of a density variance, a special use permit for an office building in the R5 zone, and a proposal for a shared parking arrangement with the apartment complex. Although the special pecial use permit and the shared parking questions will have to be addressed in due course, the first item of consideration must be the density variance since, without it, there can be no office development at all. We will, therefore, address first and foremost the variance request and the arguments made by the applicant's legal representative in respect thereof. The proposal is basically to take .7 acre of a 6.3 acre site and develope it for an 11,700 sq. ft. office development, leaving 5.6 acres for the 102 apartment units, or approximately 18.2 units per acre (the R5 maximum is 16 units /acre). Variance Request "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is Application No. 90023 continued located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out." Applicant: "The Project Property is a small parcel which abuts existing land uses located within three different zoning districts. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the development must be compatible with all three districts and existing uses. The unique shape of the original North Lyn Apartment parcel result in this "vestigial remnant" of land sandwiched between commercial and light industrial uses. It is apparent that the Project Property is not "functionally necessary" to the apartment use because it is located across a large parking area and is not utilized as a recreational facility. The Project Property has not been developed in the twenty years since the apartment complex was constructed, despite the fact that it is located in a part of the City in which high - quality commercial and residential development has occurred rapidly." Staff: These arguments seem more attuned to a request to rezone a vacant parcel of land. It should be pointed out that "the Project Property" is not at this time a separate parcel which has remained vacant while adjacent parcels have been developed. It is an underutilized part of the North Lyn Apartments site which was developed over 20 years ago. It is questionable whether even an economic hardship exists since the 6.3 acres of land supporting the North Lyn Apartments is the same amount of land as would be required in other parts of the City. There is a question, however, of whether the underutilization of an otherwise valuable area of land constitutes a practical hardship. Is it reasonable or prudent for the City to insist on this arm of land belonging to the apartment property when it has had no practical value as such and would provide aesthetic and tax benefits if developed in an appropriate manner? The original site plan for the apartments showed no intended use of the .7 acre area in question. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "As noted above, the Project Property is unique. As the surrounding area developed, the resulting development pattern created an open space between commercial and light industrial land 8 -16 -90 2 Application No. 90023 continued uses that is not put to any practical of efficient use. We are aware of no other similarly situated parcels within the City." Staff: The applicant argues that the surrounding land use pattern makes this arm of land unique. This his may be true and again raises the issue of what is the most appropriate use of this land. Standard (a) refers to "particular physical surroundings, shape..." This is not the only instance of a multiple-family parcel wrapped P Y P PP around a commercial site, leaving a narrow, possibly unusable appendage. The Humboldt Courts Apartments has such an appendage which reaches up to 69th Avenue North. There is also an 18 unit complex with two arms of land which wrap around Wes's Amoco and reach out to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Evergreen Apartments formerly had some wider appendages reaching out to West River Road. These were eliminated when Highway 252 was widened and relocated. In retrospect, these appendages, while they help to meet literal land area requirements, serve little, if any, functional purpose. They should be avoided whenever possible in the future. While there are other instances of " " is still unusable appendages, this "shape" g P somewhat rare. It may be that y this and the other instances mentioned should be considered for variance action because of their relative uniqueness and the surrounding development pattern which may suggest a more practical use of the land. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "The hardship is brought about by the strict application of the ordinance requirements." Staff: The hardship of an underutilized area of land certainly had its origin in the platting of the property in the 1960 The .7 acre arm of land was created at that time by the owner with the concurrence of the City. In hindsight, it appears that some better division of the land could have been made with fewer apartment units and more commercial use. The question is whether it is more beneficial to the public welfare to make the landowner live with this mistake or whether the P ublic interest would be better served by having the property developed. From a narrow legal perspective, the former seems to be the proper course. From an economic perspective, the latter may be more prudent. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 8 -16 -90 3 Application No. 90023 continued Applicant: "The granting of the variance to permit the development of the Project Property with an office building would not be detrimental or injurious to the public welfare or surrounding properties. In fact, there are significant positive impacts. First, the 11,700 square foot office building would generate $40,000 - $50,000 each year in new real estate taxes. Second, an office structure of this size would create employment opportunities for approximately 50 to 60 new employees. Third, the use would not generate potential adverse off -site impacts such as noise, dust, odors, glare and smoke. Fourth, the office structure would provide a visible and physical buffer between the highly traveled road to the south and the residential area to the north. Finally, the variance permitting this proposal would facilitate the efficient use of the land." The applicant adds in a separate section that a variance can be contemplated here because open space is available across Humboldt Avenue North at the High School. Staff: We agree with many of the points raised by the applicant regarding this last standard. However, it should be clear that the City will not relax its standards simply to get additional tax revenue. That should be a secondary consideration if given any weight at all. The crux of the issue seems to be whether granting the variance will result in overcrowding on the North Lyn Apartments site. The open space across Humboldt is of some value, but is intended for use primarily by high school students and is not, strictly speaking, a park for the apartment dwellers. The .7 acre area in question is not equipped with recreational facilities and the original approved plans for the complex show no planned use of the area. We are not aware of any regular use of the area by tenants. Again, in hindsight, it probably would have been better if this area were developed commercially from the beginning and if fewer apartments had been built on a smaller parcel. The major threat to the public welfare presented by this variance is the prospect that ordinance standards which have been applied uniformly across the City would be compromised in this case and perhaps weakened in the future. We see little practical detriment to the public in this case. The detriment is mostly theoretical. It should be pointed out that while ordinances should have some valid theoretical basis, much, if not all, of their value lies in making better practical results. The variance process is, therefore, established to allow for some adjustments from the ordinance requirements in large part to achieve better practical results. We would agree that, in this case, the practical benefits outweigh the costs and some adjustment may be considered to help bring this about. Shared Parking The applicant has also proposed that the new office development share parking and access with the existing apartment complex. The 8 -16 -90 4 Application No. 90023 continued proposal is for an 11,700 sq. ft., two - storey office building on the .7 acre parcel with 35 on -site parking spaces. The total parking requirement for the building would be at least 59 parking stalls. The applicant proposes to allow the office building to have shared use of up to 77 parking stalls on the North Lyn Apartments property and p p p y to have an access drive between the two sites. The applicant's representative states that "the proposed shared arkin meets the e arkin demands of the two facilities g parking ilities which are perfectly compatible because of the difference in parking needs based on the peak operating hours of the office and apartments." Mr. Sellergren notes that the City's joint parking provisions in Section 35 -720 and the definition of joint parking in Section 35 -900 state that joint parking is "for the convenience of the respective uses which share the same parking stalls at different times and cannot be used to meet the ordinance's parking requirements for the off -site use." (The applicant does propose to meet two different parking requirements with the same stalls in this case.) Mr. Sellergren goes on to point out that the City's Comprehensive Plan contains a land use policy ( #25) which recommends that "new commercial development or redevelopment complements or improves existing adjacent development through the use of proper building design and orientation, shared parking and access (emphasis added), landscape, and appropriately scaled signage." Mr. Sellergren then suggests that a variance could be granted from the strict enforcement of the joint parking provisions of the ordinance. Our response to the shared parking proposal is that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow shared parking and access between commercial and residential uses at this time, unless it was part of a Planned Unit Development, and we feel the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan applies more to adjacent commercial uses, not a commingling of commercial and residential activities. We have tried to achieve shared access in the development of the Target and Brookview Plaza sites. We generally leave joint parking arrangements that are for convenience, and are not related to development rights, to the private sector. Section 35 -314 subsection le. of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to permitted accessory uses in the R5 district allows for: "Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. (emphasis added) Such accessory uses to include, but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off - street parking and off - street loading. 0 8 -16 -90 5 Application No. pp 90023 continued Since the proposed commercial parking is an accessory use which is not permitted in the R5 district, we believe any variance to allow such ar kin would parking be a use variance which is not ermitted b P Y either City ordinance or state law. It should also be pointed out that the City's joint parking provisions do not allow the same parking stall to be counted toward two or more separate parking requirements. qu nts. The only way to acknowledge this sort rt of arrangement might Y g g be through gh approval of a Planned Unit Development. Our preliminary judgment is that the proposed development and the North Lyn Apartments are not arranged and designed as a PUD. We are also not sure that this arrangement meets the requirements for a PUD outlined in Section 35 -355 of the Zoning Ordinance. We would conclude that a variance on joint parking is not at all appropriate and a PUD is questionable. Without shared parking, the .7 acre site can support a 9,300 sq. ft. office building (see plan attached) . We feel this is a reasonable and appropriate use of the property. Conclusion /Recommendation In conclusion, we feel that there is some merit to the land area variance request, that the standards may be met in that case. However, we believe that a variance to allow shared parking between commercial and residential uses would be very inappropriate, though this concept could be comprehended under a PUD. The Commission may wish to give direction on this latter question as well as on the . variance application. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner roved byy,,'l Ronald A. Warren i Director of Planning nd Inspection g p ction 8 -16 -90 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90022 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: North of Summit Drive, east of Shingle Creek Request: Rezoning This application is a City- initiated rezoning application to rezone six parcels of land north of Summit Drive and east of Shingle Creek Parkway from I -1 to C1A. The I -1 zone is the Industrial Park zone and the ClA zone is a service /office zoning district with no height limitation. There are four existing high -rise office buildings (6200 and 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, 6160 Summit Drive and 6120 Earle Brown Drive) on the area to be rezoned and two of the parcels are vacant. The area in question includes most of the land north and east of Summit Drive with the following exceptions: the Earle Brown Commons (R7), the Earle Brown Farm (C2), the 6040 Earle Brown Drive office building, the Learning Tree Day Care Center, City - County Credit Union, and Park Nicollet Medical Center (all C2). In 1989, the City initiated and ultimately adopted a rezoning of land near the freeway from I -1 to C2. The proposal included a number of parcels between Summit Drive on the south and Freeway Boulevard on the north, plus the Holiday Inn site. When the City Council acted to approve the rezoning, they chose to eliminate from the action all the parcels south of the freeway, except the Earle Brown Farm site. It was felt that it was preferable for the vacant parcels south of the freeway to be developed with office buildings and that the zoning should limit development possibilities on those parcels to service /office uses rather than allow for other possible commercial uses allowable in the C2 zone. Since the developed land within the area in question has high -rise service /uses on it already, proposed C1 0 Y, A zoning will be consistent with existing P h i tin P g g conditions as well as long -term objectives. Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines All rezonings are subject to the evaluation policy and review guidelines _ g contained in Section 35 208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Following is a review of the proposed rezoning in light of each of the guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The proposed C1A zoning for the parcels in question is consistent with existing development and with what has been the City's preference for development in this area even while it has been zoned I -1. The area south of the freeway between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100 has not been appropriate for industrial development for many years. The proposed C1A zoning will "lock in" P g (unless changed) service /office development in this area and will prevent other types of commercial or industrial development which Application No. 90022 continued would be inappropriate and out of character for this area. While the present office market is depressed, we feel the long -term best use of this area is service /office use. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? i The proposed ClA zoning is consistent and compatible with the commercial retail zoning district to the south and east. It is also compatible with the public and high density residential uses in the area. Finally, it is very compatible with the abutting freeways. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes. All service /office uses can be contemplated. In fact, concept plans for office developments on the remaining vacant parcels have been submitted in the past, though neither are being actively pursued at this time. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Yes. Since the I -1 zoning of this property in the 1960's, the Shingle Creek Parkway bridge and freeway interchange have been constructed which has made this area more accessible and more conducive to high- density development. Much of that development has already occurred. The proposed C1A zoning will simply ratify that trend. (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to ensure that the character of the area between Summit Drive and the freeway remains predominantly a high -rise office area. We believe this will have long -term aesthetic and tax -base benefits to the community. It will also bring with it considerable rush hour traffic. The traffic concerns have been addressed in the 198 - 5 Short Elliott- Hendrickson traffic study of the central business area of the city and will continue to be addressed as development proposals are evaluated. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? 8 -16 -90 2 . Application No. 90022 continued Yes. The two vacant parcels that remain in the proposed zoning district are fairly large parcels and are capable of supporting high -rise office developments. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The parcels that are the subject of this rezoning are no longer in a good location for industrial development. The land is too valuable and too visible to put industrial buildings with loading docks and the attendant truck traffic in this area immediately adjacent to the freeway. Property owners have not sought industrial development adjacent to the north side of the freeway and we doubt that there would be any inclination to develop the south side in that fashion either. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The City's Comprehensive Plan originally recommended service /office use in this area and was amended in 1986 to comprehend high -rise residential and retail commerce as well. The proposed C1A zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this area. There is also a minimum of vacant land in the C1A district. There is a partially developed parcel at the Brooklyn Crossing office park development at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and there are no other vacant parcels of C1A land in the city. Finally, we believe high -rise office development, while it may not occur soon, will be beneficial to the community both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of tax revenue. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Staff believe there are public benefits to the proposed rezoning. It will, to some extent, limit the development options of property owners in this area. While these limitations may result in the available land remaining vacant for some time, we believe the long term best interests of the community and of this area warrant these limitations. Again, the existing zoning of the property is I -1 (Industrial Park) and it is unlikely that the land would be developed industrially anyway. We believe the best long -term use is high -rise office. 8 -16 -90 3 I Application No. 90022 continued . Conclusion/Recommendation Most rezonings are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory group. In this case, the Planning Commission itself serves as the advisory group for the central commercial and industrial area of the community. If the Commission desires more information on this matter, the application can be tabled. However, we recommend that the application be approved. A draft resolution of approval will be available for the Commission's consideration. Submitted by, Gary Sllcross Planner ve / d -� bye, /Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -16 -90 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 -27 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning commission Application No. 90021 - Brenda Noyed DEPARTMENT APP / cc - CJ4— Signature - title birector of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Application No. 90021 is a request for special use permit approval to operate a home hair care salon in the basement of the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North. This application was considered by the Planning commission at its August 16, 1990 regular meeting. Minutes, information sheet, a map of the area, and drawings are attached for the council's review. Recommendation Approval of the application was recommended by the Planning commission subject to the six conditions listed on page 3 of the August 16, 1990 minutes. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 0 OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 16, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 26, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 26, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioner Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairperson Malecki. The motion passed. _APPLICATION NO. 90021 (Brenda Noyed) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a home hair care salon in the basement of the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90021 attached). Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the limit of 10 persons in the basement. The Planner explained that this came from a Building Code limit, that over 10 occupants would require a second means of egress. The Secretary added that this was because of the commercial nature of the use in the basement. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to an egress window. The Secretary responded that one is not needed though it would not be discouraged either. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the permits and the required ventilation for the beauty shop area. The Planner answered that there are state requirements for ventilation which must be met when a state inspector reviews the premises for compliance for the shop license requirements. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether she had anything to add and whether she could comment on the ventilation requirements. Ms. Noyed responded that the state simply requires "proper 8 -16 -90 1 I� ventilation ". She stated that she would check into those requirements. Commissioner Bernards asked Ms. Noyed whether she worked in a shop right now. Ms. Noyed responded that she did work in a shop in Brooklyn Park. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the sink existed in the basement at this time. Ms. Noyed responded that it was not in at present, but would be added if the permit is granted. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90021) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that his main concern was parking. He noted that the City Council had recently looked at home occupations and asked where that discussion was going. The Secretary responded that staff have not been directed to prepare any ordinance changes. He stated that the subject was discussed at a Council meeting in July and that an article appeared in the Brooklyn Center Post News recently. He stated that any direction to alter the ordinance would come through the Planning Commission for review. He added that there is a lot of history behind the City's home occupation ordinance, that it regulates what people can do with their property. He stated that the City's ordinance is a compromise between an extreme on the one hand of doing what anyone wants with one's property or on the other extreme of allowing no business use at all within a residential district. He stated that he had seen many beauty shops come and go over the years and that he had only heard complaints once. He stated that he did not think the proposed beauty shop would pose a problem. Commissioner Sander asked whether there would be an employee. The Secretary responded that an employee was not comprehended by this application and that Ms. Noyed would have to bring an application back to the Planning Commission and City Council for an amendment to the special use permit if she ever wished to add an employee. Commissioner Sander expressed concern regarding possible traffic problems if an employee were part of the business. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90021 (Brenda No ed Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend approval of Application No. 99021, subject to the following conditions: 8 -16 -90 2 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty /barber shop with a single operator. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. On- street parking is expressly prohibited. 4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her property prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. , Tuesday through Thursday and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on an appointment -only basis. 6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one time shall not exceed 10. 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and complete all required building improvements prior to issuance of the special use permit. 8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90023 (Alan Chazin) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by Alan Chazin for a lot area or density variance at the North Lyn Apartments at 6511 -6521 Humboldt Avenue North to allow the existing 102 unit complex on a smaller land parcel in order to subdivide off .7 acre of land for an office development. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90023 attached). The Secretary added a number of other points during and after his review of the staff report. He noted that he had talked with the City Assessor and that the City Assessor questioned whether the tax 8 -16 -90 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90021 Applicant: Brenda Noyed Location: 4013 58th Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit /Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a family hair care salon in the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by 58th Avenue North on the north, and on the east, south, and west by single- family homes. The home lies on the south side of 58th Avenue in the block between Halifax and June Avenues North. Home beauty and barber shops are allowed in the R1 zone by special use permit. The applicant, Ms. Brenda Noyed, has submitted a letter (attached) in which she describes the proposed home occupation. In it, she states that the salon would be located in the basement, in an area about 11' x 15 Clients would enter and exit the home around the west side of the house and through the back door. The salon would operate on an appointment -only basis and the hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. She points out that the driveway has space for four cars and she plans to install a turnaround if the special use permit is approved. She adds that she feels she can control traffic and parking through appropriate scheduling practices. Ms. Noyed states that she intends to follow strict safety standards, installing smoke detectors, a fire extinguisher, and first aid kit in the salon. Additional lighting for safe passage will also be provided. She notes she plans to install a 2.5 sq. ft. sign identifying the business and a small directional sign on the garage. Ms. Noyed states she has a cosmetologist manager /operator license from the state and adds that she plans to apply for a salon license upon approval of the special use permit. The primary concern we see with this application is parking. It would appear to be a fairly standard home beauty shop and should generate a normal amount of traffic. On- street parking is rarely allowed in conjunction with a home occupation and, in this case, is simply not an option, given the nature of 58th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare. The applicant presently possesses a two -car wide driveway and plans to add a turnaround. These are important requirements as well as careful scheduling and taking customers on an appointment -only basis. If these elements are all provided, we feel the beauty shop can operate normally and safely. Altogether, the application appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions:. 8 -16 -90 1 Application No. 90021 continued 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty /barber shop with a single operator. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. On- street parking is expressly prohibited. 4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her property prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p. m. , Tuesday through Thursday and f rom 9: 0 0 a. m. to 4: 0 0 p.m., Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on an appointment -only basis. 6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one time shall not exceed 10. 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and complete all required building improvements prior to issuance of the special use permit. 8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use permit. - Submitted by, n Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, / Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8-16-90 16 90 2 y IV Do W N I C 4 ee t i I I t Verdi (c�+i oh abovc 40+i oh Wi�do K- di re. e2E4 wisher ` Vic SU0.Ai o r1 (i Mph Gti r L Nr desty Z ' Ckai r i i . lAZlttD Dcor _ r t Q Yvi i t Ao. boc AsAome�, Ftd4 v�`' �ttYV1-Q- Y(31tr1d SIT }` Oman Pxd.. W ANWGI � C . MEN L r gill �* •...��`�� ��'•'•' �� �• x:.1111/1 �i► �■. � MEN MMII MM MW se ' r �. Vu a :•u ■.� MUM MU L ■ ■�U �����/ .:ails MOM IMU ills INN ��� .. Zvi � ��1�i� ��s�'�tC� ■ti It t om„ SCHOOL loll IN FAM . t � -6� ii lll■l■l■111�1�� �1�• '��'� � ' �� I�IU1 /111: �•• �— ., a a CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/27/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90022 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -2 - City of Brooklyn Center DEPARTMENT A AL: Signature - title Director of Planning and specti on MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X� Application No. 90022 is a request by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone from I -1 to C1A six parcels of land between I94 and • Summit Drive and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. This application and resolution were considered by the Planning Commission at its. August 16, 1990 regular meeting. Minutes, information sheet, map of the area and a copy of Planning Commission Resolution 90 -2 are attached for the Council's review. The City Council had previously considered these parcels of land for rezoning earlier this year following a recommendation by the Planning Commission to include them and a number of parcels immediately north of I -94 and the Earle Brown Farm in a rezoning to C2. The Council decided to exclude these parcels from that C2 rezoning and to consider these parcels in a C1A rezoning which would limit their development to service /office uses with no limit on the``height of the buildings. This is the use being made of the developed property and the proposed use for the undeveloped property in this area. Recommendation A resolution approving Planning Commission Application No. 90022 and an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to describe the property being rezoned are offered for the Council's consideration. It is recommended that both of these items be approved. Chairperson Malecki stated that some people are concerned with the PUD option. The Secretary responded that the staff have not looked at that possibility closely. He stated that variances are intended to deal with these kinds of situations as the report points out. He noted a couple of other similar arms of land in the community and stated that variances might be warranted in those situations also. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was also concerned about setting a precedent, but that he felt a variance was a lesser of two evils. He stated that using a PUD in this situation might be an abuse of the ordinance. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had reservations about the proposal. He stated that he was thinking of the residents near the Garden City Court Apartments and their concern about recreational facilities. He suggested that staff also look at the possibility of utilizing the area for some recreational purpose that might benefit the apartments. The Secretary agreed. He pointed out that both apartment complexes were built at the same density, but that the North Lyn Apartment complex seems to have a better layout even without the .7 acre area of land that the applicants wish to divide off. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 90023 (Alan Chazin) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 90023 and direct staff to study further possible options for the property in question. Commissioner Bernards asked whether one of the options to be considered was the option he had discussed of adding recreational facilities to the area. The Secretary stated that that was his understanding that that was an option to be considered. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:02 p.m. and resumed at 9:07 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 90022 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone from I -1 to ClA six parcels of land between I94 and Summit Drive and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90022 attached). The Secretary added that the concern of the City Council regarding the C2 zoning application submitted last year was that it would allow a retail use in the area in question. He stated that the City really does not want retail on the vacant parcels south of the freeway. He stated that I 0 8 -16 -90 8 the C1A zoning would preserve the service /office character of this area. He added that an ordinance amendment passed early this year took most of the C2 uses out of the I -1 zone. Therefore, he concluded, the only uses being taken away now from these parcels with the rezoning were industrial uses. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the property owners had been notified. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. The Planner stated that he had received one call from Ryan Construction Company and that after explaining the application, they had stated there was no objection. Commissioner Mann asked about how the rezoning would affect the possible location of group homes and other institutional uses. The Secretary pointed out some of the vacant industrial sites north of the freeway. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the area in question was within the tax increment financing district. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the proposed rezoning would accelerate or slow down the development of the property. The Secretary stated that neither would happen, but that the market would determine when the property was developed. Commissioner Bernards concluded that it would take more time for the proper development. The Secretary stated that the City did not want to see a shopping center on these vacant parcels north of Summit Drive and south of the freeway. He explained that that was the reason why these parcels were removed from the C2 rezoning initiated last year. The Planner added that last year there was still some market for retail development, though the office market was fairly dead. He added that the entire real estate market is depressed. The Secretary reminded the Commission that one of the concerns last year was about the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, that there might be a proposal to develop that area with a motel and a fast food restaurant. He stated that such a development was not in the City's plan for this area, but that the City did not feel it could deny a special use permit for that kind of use. As a result, the ordinance had to be changed to limit what could be allowed in the I -1 zone. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90022) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to comment on the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann expressed that high -rise development adjacent to the freeway might tend to bury the Earle Brown Farm. The Secretary explained that that possibility was looked at when the Farm was 8 -16 -90 9 developed and that models of office buildings in the area were presented which would show the possible site lines to the Earle Brown Farm. He stated that the glass office buildings would reflect the Farm and were considered, on balance, positive. Commissioner Mann asked whether a shopping mall would be allowed in the I -1 zone. The Secretary answered that it used to be until eight months ago. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 90 -2 REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90022 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -2. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against; none. The motion passed. The Commission and staff briefly discussed upcoming business. The Secretary also discussed with the Commission the action on the Teasdale application. He explained that further study would be needed on the Housing Policy issues presented by that application. Commissioner Ainas noted that new apartments have to have 3' wide doors and be accessible to the handicapped. The Planner also informed the Commission that a rezoning application might be submitted in the near future by H and E Homes to rezone the Soo 0 Line property from I -2 to R2 to allow for single- family development. ADJOURNMENT Following further brief discussion of various questions there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Chairperson 8 -16 -90 10 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -2 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90022 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 90022 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C1A (Service /Office six parcels of land lying between Summit Drive and Interstate 94 and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on August 16, 1990 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in light of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance, and of the existing pattern of development in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 90022, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The CiA zoning is Msistent with the existing land development in the area in question. The present I -1 zoning allows for industrial uses which would be inconsistent with other land uses in this area. 2. All permitted uses in the C1A zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject properties. 3. Since the original I -1 zoning of this land, the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange with the freeway has been constructed which has improved access to the area and made high density development more desirable. 4. The City's interest in quality aesthetics and increased tax base and keeping the character of the area high -rise office will be served by the proposed rezoning. 5. The subject properties will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the C1A district. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -2 6. The location of the six parcels contained in the rezoning application is no longer suited to industrial uses. 7. The rezoning will result in the expansion of a zoning district which is warranted by a) the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the lack of developable land in the C1A district; and c) the best interests of the community. 8. The best long -term use of the parcels in question is high -rise office. 9. In light of the above, it is felt that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Ella Sander and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Ella Sander and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90022 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: North of Summit Drive, east of Shingle Creek Request: Rezoning This application is a City- initiated rezoning application to rezone six parcels of land north of Summit Drive and east of Shingle Creek Parkway from I -1 to C1A. The I -1 zone is the Industrial Park zone and the C1A zone is a service /office zoning district with no height limitation. There are four existing high -rise office buildings (6200 and 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, 6160 Summit Drive and 6120 Earle Brown Drive) on the area to be rezoned and two of the parcels are vacant. The area in question includes most of the land north and east of Summit Drive with the following exceptions: the Earle Brown Commons (R7), the Earle Brown Farm (C2), the 6040 Earle Brown Drive office building, the Learning Tree Day Care Center, City - County Credit Union, and Park Nicollet Medical Center (all C2). In 1989, the City initiated and ultimately adopted a rezoning of land near the freeway from I -1 to C2. The proposal included a number of parcels between Summit Drive on the south and Freeway Boulevard on the north, plus the Holiday Inn site. When the City Council acted to approve the rezoning, they chose to eliminate from the action all the parcels south of the freeway, except the Earle Brown Farm site. It was felt that it was preferable for the vacant parcels south of the freeway to be developed with office buildings and that the zoning should limit development possibilities on those parcels to service /office uses rather than allow for other possible commercial uses allowable in the C2 zone. Since the developed land within the area in question has high -rise service /uses on it already, the proposed C1A zoning will be consistent with existing conditions as well as long -term objectives. Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines All rezonings are subject to the evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Following is a review of the proposed rezoning in light of each of the guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The proposed C1A zoning for the parcels in question is consistent with existing development and with what has been the City's preference for development in this area even while it has been zoned I -1. The area south of the freeway between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100 has not been appropriate for industrial development for many years. The proposed C1A zoning will "lock in" (unless changed) service /office development in this area and will prevent other types of commercial or industrial development which Application No. 90022 continued would be inappropriate and out of character for this area. While the present office market is depressed, we feel the long -term best use of this area is service /office use. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The proposed C1A zoning is consistent and compatible with the commercial retail zoning district to the south and east. It is also compatible with the public and high density residential uses in the area. Finally, it is very compatible with the abutting freeways. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes. All service /office uses can be contemplated. In fact, concept plans for office developments on the remaining vacant parcels have been submitted in the past, though neither are being actively pursued at this time. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned ?. Yes. Since the I -1 zoning of this property in the 1960's, the Shingle Creek Parkway bridge and freeway interchange have been constructed which has made this area more accessible and more conducive to high- density development. Much of that development has already occurred. The proposed C1A zoning will simply ratify that trend. (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to ensure that the character of the area between Summit Drive and the freeway remains predominantly a high -rise office area. We believe this will have long -term aesthetic and tax -base benefits to the community. It will also bring with it considerable rush hour traffic. The traffic concerns have been addressed in the 1985 Short- Elliott- Hendrickson traffic study of the central business area of the city and will continue to be addressed as development proposals are evaluated. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? 8 -16 -90 2 Application No. 90022 continued Yes. The two vacant parcels that remain in the ro osed zoning P P g district are fairly large parcels and are capable of supporting high -rise office developments. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the resent zoning with respect t P o size g P , configuration, topography or location? The parcels that are the subject of this rezoning are no longer in a good location for industrial development. The land is too valuable and too visible to put industrial buildings with loading docks and the attendant truck traffic in this area immediately adjacent to the freeway. Property owners have not sought industrial development adjacent to the north side of the freeway and we doubt that there would be any inclination to develop the south side in that fashion either. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The City's Comprehensive Plan originally recommended service /office use in this area and was amended in 1986 to comprehend high -rise residential and retail commerce as well. The proposed C1A zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this area. There is also a minimum of vacant land in the C1A district. There is a partially developed parcel at the Brooklyn Crossing office park development at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and there are no other vacant parcels of ClA land in the city. Finally, we believe high -rise office development, while it may not occur soon, will be beneficial to the community both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of tax revenue. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Staff believe there are public benefits to the proposed rezoning. It will, to some extent, limit the development options of property owners in this area. While these limitations may result in the available land remaining vacant for some time, we believe the long term best interests of the community and of this area warrant these limitations. Again, the existing zoning of the property is I -1 (Industrial Park) and it is unlikely that the land would be developed industrially anyway. We believe the best long -term use is high -rise office. 8 -16 -90 3 Application No. 90022 continued Conclusion /Recommendation Most rezonings are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory group. In this case, the Planning Commission itself serves as the advisory group for the central commercial and industrial area of the community. If the Commission desires more information on this matter, the application can be tabled. However, we recommend that the application be approved. A draft resolution of approval will be available for the Commission's consideration. 8 -16 -90 4 �'' i � BR OOKLYN HI GH SCHOOL • u � '- � � i�, sY � p � �� /soon . � . . •a Lei mm MM mm -� �- �*• j aS j' • • � � � MM MM mm -- �- 0 - ����������� ■A■ IMF■ ��..-y�-Mm� N�� WVA Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90022 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 90022 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C1A (Service /Office) six parcels of land lying between Summit Drive and Interstate 94 and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on August 16, 1990 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on August 16, 1990 considered and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -2 recommending approval of the proposed rezoning in light of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezoning in the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Council considered the rezoning proposal at its August 27, 1990 regular meeting and held a duly called public hearing at which testimony regarding the matter was taken; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed rezoning is in the best interests of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 90022 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby approved in consideration of the following: 1. The C1A zoning is consistent with the existing land development in the area in question. The present I -1 zoning allows for industrial uses which would be inconsistent with other land uses in this area. 2. All permitted uses in the C1A zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject properties. 3. Since the original I -1 zoning of this land, the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange with the freeway has been constructed which has improved access to the area and made high density development more desirable. 4. The City's interest in quality aesthetics and increased tax base and keeping the character of the area high -rise office will be served by the proposed rezoning. RESOLUTION NO. 5. The subject properties will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the C1A district. 6. The location of the six parcels contained in the rezoning application is no longer suited to industrial uses. 7. The rezoning will result in the expansion of a zoning district which is warranted by a) the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the lack of developable land in the ClA district; and c) the best interests of the community. 8. The best long -term use of the parcels in question is high -rise office. 9. In light of the above, it is felt that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. 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 Notice is hereby given that a ublic hearing will be held on the P g day of , 1990 at 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 are available upon request 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -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 -1180. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (C1A). The following properties are hereby established as being within the C1A Service /Office District zoning classification. Tract A, R.L.S. 1543. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 Brookdale Corporate Center Addition. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Brooklyn Farm Plat Tracts D and E, R.L.S. No 1380 except highway 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: [Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Brookdale Corporate Center Addition Lots 1 and 2, Brooklyn Farm Plat Tracts D and E, R.L.S. No. 1380, except highway] 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 Published Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/27190 Agenda Item Number Q/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: BUSINESS ETHICS POLICY DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Attached is a draft of a business ethics policy for the City of Brooklyn Center. This draft has been reviewed, discussed, and refined by City department heads and the city attorney. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Review and approve the business ethics policy. I • D CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS ETHICS POLICY 90 1. The City of Brooklyn Center shall operate its business in accordance with the highest ethical standards and with the applicable laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. Specific matters or types of transactions not covered by such specific provisions shall be conducted in accordance with the following general policy. 2. For purposes of this statement of business ethics policy, the term "public official" shall include all elected officials, all members of boards or commissions, and the city manager and all employees of the City. OFFERING OR ACCEPTING GIFTS AND GRATUITIES. 1. No public official shall misuse his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for such person or any other person. 2. No public official shall directly or indirectly receive, or agree to receive, any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity in payment for the performance of his or her official duties except as may be provided by law. 3. Whenever a City official or employee deals with a supplier or customer, he or she has an obligation to act solely in the best interest of the City. This obligation includes not only those acts formalized by written contracts but also covers everyday business relationships with vendors or customers. 4. No City employee shall ask for or accept (directly or indirectly) payment, favors, or any other thing of significant value from a current or potential City supplier or customer, or any other person in consideration for assistance or influence, or upon the representation that such assistance or influence has been or will be rendered, in connection with a purchase or any other transaction or proceeding affecting the City. This policy does not bar the acceptance of unsolicited meals, entertainment, or advertising favors which are of negligible value and are legally permissible, when no assistance is given for or any obligation to render assistance is assumed by such acceptance. 5. No City employee shall offer or give (directly or indirectly) payments, favors, or any other thing of significant value to an employee or agent of a current or potential supplier, customer, or union in consideration for assistance or influence, or upon the representation that such assistance or influence has been or will be rendered, in connection with a sale or any other transaction or proceeding affecting his or her employer or principal and the City. This policy generally does not apply to meals, entertainment, or advertising favors which are of insignificant value and are legally permissible and are given or offered without condition that it obligate the recipient. -1- Mg A - MIT 6. Acceptance or giving of gifts must be limited to incidentals which are obviously of an advertising nature as items of insignificant value, or which in no way would cause the City to be embarrassed or obligated, and no gifts or entertainment may be accepted which, due to value, circumstances, disposition of the gift, frequency or repetition of donation could cause the City to be embarrassed or obligated. Gifts which do not fit in these categories must be returned. 7. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions should be referred to an employee's immediate supervisor or department head, or the city manager. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 1. Prohibited Conduct. a. A City official or employee may not engage in any activity or become involved in any arrangement (directly or indirectly) through a family member or other person acting on his or her behalf which will conflict, or may reasonably be viewed as conflicting, with his or her obligations and responsibilities to the City or involve the use of City information or goodwill for personal gain or for the gain of others. The term "family member" means a spouse, a son or daughter (either natural or by adoption), or any blood relation not more remote than first cousin. b. A City official, exempt employee, or nonexempt service employee must make prior disclosure of any contemplated consulting, representation, or secondary employment arrangement. If the city manager determines that the proposed activity would violate any of the above conditions, the employee may not engage in it and continue City employment. Employment of the spouse of an employee by a competitor or supplier may give rise to a conflict of interest depending on the nature of the position involved. Because of the variety of situations and the potential for sex discrimination claims, questionable situations should be reviewed with the city attorney's office. 2. Action to be taken by City official or employee: a. Whenever any City official or employee, in the discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision which would substantially affect the individual's financial interests or those of an associated business, (unless the effect on the individual is no greater than on other members of the official's business classification, profession, or occupation), they shall: i. Prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest; ii. Deliver copies of the statement to the city council, the city manager, and the employee's immediate superior, if any; -2- M A M IT .� U, ` - o iii. If a potential conflict of interest presents itself and there is insufficient time to comply with the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii), the public official or employee shall orally inform the city council or superior of the potential conflict. b. If the public official is not a member of the city council, the city manager shall make a determination in the matter. If there is no immediate superior, the public official shall abstain in a manner prescribed by the city council from influence over the action or decision in question. If the public official is a member of the city council, at the member's request, the city council shall excuse the member from taking part in the action or decision in question. EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES 1. A "relative" is an employee's mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, sister, brother, son, daughter, spouse, mother -in -law, father -in -law, stepmother, stepfather, stepchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew. 2. No employee shall work under the supervision of a relative, regardless of the number of intermediate supervisors between the employee and the related manager. 3. No relative of an elected City official may be hired. Elected City officials are defined as those elected by the citizens. 4. Regular, temporary, full -time, part -time, and summer employees are all covered by this policy. 5. To ensure consistency of implementation, no organization of the City may adopt rules regarding the employment of relatives which are different from those outlined in this policy, except as may be required for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 6. In all cases involving a possible violation of these provisions relating to the employment of relatives, the city manager shall consult with the city attorney to determine whether the implementation of this policy is consistent with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. SAFEGUARDING CITY ASSETS 1. The department head or assigned manager /supervisor at each location is responsible for the safeguarding of all City assets and the correctness of data submitted to the finance department and contained in the financial reports. 2. Special protection should be afforded assets which are readily saleable because of high intrinsic value or common usage. Attention should also be given to machinery, equipment, and records which, if damaged, would stop or drastically reduce operations for an extended period. Examples of assets or documents which could provide access to assets and which need protection are: -3- M M V, A Z��90 Cash Marketable securities Readily marketable products, parts and subassemblies Precious metals (raw or in any high content form) Check blanks Stamps /postage meters Common tools and equipment High value, portable equipment Data processing and other office equipment, including programs Vital records 3. Although the preparation of the financial reports is the duty of the finance department, department heads are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the financial data. Consequently, the department heads should be concerned about all those factors which are involved in the propriety of recordkeeping and in the care taken as to the procurement, handling, upkeep, and disposal of assets of all kinds. 4. The objective should be to safeguard City assets and maintain reliable financial records at a level of acceptable business risk. No false, misleading, or artificial entries shall be made on the books and records of the City. No funds or assets shall be maintained by the City for any illegal or improper purpose. All transactions must be fully and completely documented and recorded in the City's accounting records. All City payments, except from authorized petty cash funds, must be approved by the department head or the acting department head in the department head's absence. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 1 The rights of employees to express their personal views on matters of public policy and to participate in partisan political activities on personal time shall be protected. An employee shall neither gain favor nor incur disadvantages within the City because of any decision or activity regarding the employee's personal political participation. 2. The city charter and personnel ordinance govern the political activity as applicable to City employees and are to be consulted for guidance. 3. Any questions concerning the application of this policy regarding specific transactions should be discussed with an employee's immediate supervisor, department head, or city manager. -4- 0 D A g . z � REPRESENTATION CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH CITY POLICIES Representing my department, I declare that to the best of my knowledge, none of our employees whom I supervise is in violation of the City of Brooklyn Center policies and practices with regard to business ethics, offering or accepting gifts and gratuities, conflicts of interest, employment of relatives, safeguarding city assets, and political activities and that these policies and practices have been reviewed within the last year with all employees whom I supervise. Signature Name and Title Department Date -5- (AMEMOI) DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO: Mayor Nyquist and Members of the City Council FROM: Director of Finance DATE: August 17, 1990 SUBJECT: NEW RETIREMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS Legislation passed in the last session of the Minnesota Legislature permits elected officials to participate in the Defined Contribution Plan (DCP) of the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA). You may have already received this information directly from PERA. Their are also other pension options now available to elected officials, including buy -back for past elective service. I have attached information which describes the options available to you. Since the available options will vary with individual Council Members, I would be happy to assist you in obtaining further information if you are interested. I L.J. Paul W. Holmlund cc: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Geralyn Barone, Personnel Coordinator Pat Swedburg, Payroll /Personnel Technician Retirement Plan Alternatives For s Local Minnesota Elected Officials z= T eg�slation passed in the last session of the the Defined Contribution Plan, the Coordinated (or Minnesota Legislature permits elected officials in Basic) Plan, or refrains from PERA membership en- Minnesota to participate in the Defined Contribution tirely. Plan (DCP) of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). Officials who enroll in the Current Officials With Past Defined Contribution Plan will contribute 5 percent Elected Service of subsequent earnings and their employers will contribute an identical amount. DCP participants Officials presently holding elective office who have may also pay past contributions on uncovered elective prior service as elected officials have a number of al- service, if they have it, and invest those contributions ternatives, depending upon whether they choose to in the DCP. As always, elected officials who earn enroll in the Defined Contribution Plan or begin or more than $425 a month may enroll in the PERA continue in the Coordinated (or Basic) Plan. Coordinated Plan. In addition, under provisions of the new law, officials who are or become members of Officials Presently Enrolled In PERA PERA's Coordinated or Basic Retirement Plans may May Elect DCP purchase past uncovered elective service at actuarial cost. Elected officials presently members of PERA's Coor- dinated or Basic Plans may join the Defined Contribution Plan between July 1, 1990 through June The new law opens the Defined Contribution Plan 30, 1991. Enrollment in the DCP terminates the Basic to all local elected officials in Minnesota, except .. or Coordinated membership. The participant will pay elected county sheriffs, whether or not the elected offi- contributions of 5 percent of all future earnings into cials are presently enrolled in the PERA Coordinated the Defined Contribution Plan; the employer will or Basic Plan. Officials will have an opportunity to en- match those contributions. Because Coordinated (or roll in either the DCP or Coordinated Plan, but not Basic) membership has ended, the official has the fol- both. Elected officials currently in the Basic or Coor- lowing options: dinated Plan have from July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 to elect to participate in the Defined Contribution ■ If the official has 3 or more years of service, the Plan. There is no time limit on enrollment in the DCP official has 2 alternatives: 1)PERA contributions for officials who are not presently PERA members. may be left with PERA. This will entitle the official to collect a deferred PERA annuity as early as age 55. At the time of the deferral, an The purpose of this brochure is to explain the annuity is computed based upon the individual's options available to elected officials. It also describes average salary and years of service. This annuity PERA's Defined Contribution and Coordinated is then increased by 3 percent annually to the first Plans, and the steps to be taken to purchase past ser- of the year following age 55, and by 5 percent vice or pay past contributions. annually after that. Or 2) the official may apply for a refund of employee contributions plus 6 percent interest compounded annually. Options For Elected Officials ■ Or, if the official has less than three years of service, the official may apply for a refund of The options available to elected officials generally employee contributions plus 6 percent interest depend upon whether the official has elected service compounded annually. The taking of the refund prior to the present position, whether the official is dissolves the individual's right to a pension or currently a member of PERA's Basic or Coordinated disability or survivor benefit. Plan, and whether the official elects to participate in July 1990 y The new DCP participant with prior elected Plan may continue to remain out of those plans and service may also have the following additional option: the DCP as well. ■ If the official has service in elected office (either Officials Elected In The Future } the currently held position or a previously held position) which was not covered by PERA (in The opportunities afforded newly elected officials other words, the official had not made PERA (without prior elective service) depend upon whether _ contributions at all on this elected service), the the officials choose to enroll in the Defined Contribu- official may pay all or part of these past tion Plan or the Coordinated (or Basic) Plan, or contributions and put them into the Defined remain out of PERA. Future elected officials may. Contribution Plan. ■ As in the past, elect to enroll in the Coordinated Officials Electing Or Remaining In The Plan if they are earning or will earn more than Coordinated or Basic Plan $425 in a month. Officials will pay 4.23 percent of salary to PERA; their employers will match Officials presently enrolled in PERA who have prior that 4.23 percent and pay an additional share of elected service (either in the currently held office, or ' .25 percent, for a total employer contribution of in a previously held office) and who choose to remain 4.48 percent of employee salary. Once enrolled in the Coordinated (or Basic) Plan will make Coor in the Coordinated Plan, members may withdraw dinated contributions of 4.23 percent on future salary from participation only upon termination of that and their employer will match that percentage and elective office. contribute an additional .25 percent of salary. (Basic members and employers contribute 8.23 and 10.73 percent respectively.) These officials will also have 0 Enroll in PERA's Defined Contribution Plan. one or more of the following options: Upon enrollment, the participant will contribute 5 percent of earnings to the plan. This 5 percent ■ The official may purchase prior uncovered will be matched by the employer. Participants service credit. The purchase req uires not meet a minimum earnings level to wires that &S - q PERA compute the additional pension amount, enroll in the DCP. Once enrolled in DCP, � • that will be paid as a result of the purchase of members must contribute to the plan until service credit. PERA uses actuarial tables to termination of elective office. determine the current value of the additional pension. If the member meets requirements, the Remain out of PERA entirely. Officials may member may purchase all or part of the later elect to participate in either the DCP or the uncovered service and may make annual payments over five years. Coordinated Plan at any point in the future while in elected office. ■ The official may repay a PERA refund, if he or Individuals Not Presently Holding Office. ` she received a refund at termination of a previous public position. In repaying a refund, The law that created the Defined Contribution Plan for elected officials does not apply to persons the member purchases prior covered service. The member must repay the actual refund not presently in elective office, but who have held amount with interest at 6 percent compounded elective office in the past. It also does not apply to annually. If repaid, prior service credit is current PERA members who are not presently in i restored and the member will receive a larger . elective office. pension at retirement as a result. PERA Retirees In Elected Office Officials Not Presently Enrolled In A PERA Plan PERA retirees may hold elective office and enroll ` in the Defined Contribution Plan. Participation in Officials currently holding elective office who have DCP does not affect retiree benefits. elected not to enroll in PERA's Coordinated or Basic 2 A 1., T� � Cost Of Participation Facts About T Defined Participants in the Defined Contribution Plan con- Contribution Plan t ribute 5 percent of earnings; their employers match that 5 percent. Contributions are paid on salary The Defined Contribution Plan operates much which, for the purposes of the Defined Contribution like a savings plan. Contributions are made by Plan, is the same as salary for PERA's Basic, Coor- employees and matched by employers and are in- dinated, and Police and Fire Funds. Therefore, salary vested in accounts of the Minnesota Supplemental includes compensation for services rendered or labor Investment Fund selected by the participating performed. Moreover, deductions are to be taken on elected official. Contributions are used to purchase used vacation and sick leave and on retroactive pay. shares in the accounts selected. The value of ac- Salary does not encompass reimbursement for or pay - counts increase (or decrease) as the value of the meat of expenses. Also, salary does not include shares purchased increase and as shares pay either payment for unused vacation or sick leave. Unlike dividends or interest. PERA's Basic, Coordinated, and Police and Fire Plans, for elected officials who have chosen to par - ticipate, contributions are taken regardless of earnings The investment account options available to par- level. In other words, participants need not earn more ticipants are described in the enclosed Minnesota than $425 Per month in order to participate in the Supplemental Investment Fund Prospectus. Defined Contribution Plan. As statute authorizes, PERA deducts two percent Elected Officials Eligible To Participate of employer contnbutions to help defray the cost of administering the plan. Except for elected county sheriffs who are specifically excluded, participation in the DCP is open to all elected local government officials in Min - nesota. For the purposes of the Defined Benefits Earned In The Defined Contribution Plan, elected official means an official elected by the public rather than by other elected of- Contribution Plan ficials. Participants are paid the value of their accounts in the DCP as a lump sum at death, retirement (at any Elected officials presently enrolled in PERA's age), or termination of employment. The lump sum Basic and Coordinated Plans have until June 30, payment is the actual value of the shares held plus ac- 1991 to terminate membership in these plans and en- cumulated interest or dividends earned by those roll in the DCP. After June 30,1991, elected shares. At termination or retirement, payments are officials who are members of the Coordinated or made to the participant 30 days after application. Or, Basic Plans will be prohibited from enrolling in the the participant may leave contr invested, roll Defined Contribution Plan. the payment over into another qualified plan, or direct PERA to remit payment to an insurance company licensed by the state and selected by the participant Elected officials eligible to elect the DCP include, for the purpose of purchasing an annuity. At death, but are not limited to, school board members, coun- payment is made to named beneficiaries. If there are ty attorneys, city council members, county no beneficiaries on record, payment will be made to commissioners, township supervisors, county the deceased participant's legal heirs. auditors, and county treasurers. DCP participation is open to elected officials regardless of the level of . Withdrawals Upon Permanent Disability their earnings. A DCP participant may withdraw funds from the Defined Contribution Plan if he or she becomes per - manently disabled. Withdrawals may be made in 3 equal monthly installments in increments of $100. The PERA Coordinated Plan Also, withdrawals may not exceed ten times the joint employer and employee contributions for the month Elected officials may join the PERA Coordinated preceding disability. To collect disability payments, Retirement Plan if they earn more than $425 per participants must file an application with PERA. In month. Coordinated members contribute 4.23 per - addition, PERA must certify that impairment meets cent of earnings to PERA. Employers match the statutory definition of disability, that disability is employee contributions and pay an additional .25 per- expected to be greater than one year in duration, and cent of salary to PERA. that disability will prevent substantial gainful activity. Payment begins on the first day of the month follow- ing the month in which the disability occurred. Employers must report earnings and contributions Payments end when the participant's disabled status on a Salary Deduction Report. These reports and ends-or the account balance is exhausted, whichever payments of employee and employer contributions. occurs first. must be submitted to PERA each time employees are paid. Complete details about how contributions are reported and paid can be found in PERA's Reporting Taxes Deferred On Contributions Manual For Payroll and Personnel Officers. Federal and state income taxes on contributions made to the Defined Contribution Plan and earnings Under the Coordinated Plan, members earn a pen - on DCP investments are deferred to the time of sion based upon the number of years they contributed withdrawal. Withdrawal occurs when lump sum pay- on public employment and a percentage of their ments are made at death, termination of employment, average salary (five highest consecutive years). or retirement, or when partial payments are made Spec rules with regard to age and number of years upon permanent disability. of service govern when members may retire and the amount of their pensions. Members may retire as Enrollment In The Defined early as age 55 with 3 years of service, but their pen - Contribution Plan sion will be reduced for early retirement. The Coordinated Plan also provides disability and sur- Elected officials demonstrate their desire to enroll vivor benefits. These benefits and complete in the DCP by completing a PERA Defined Contribu- retirement options are discussed in the enclosed tion Plan membership form. Enrollment is effective brochure, "Your Benefits With PERA, Information on the first day of the month after the membership For Coordinated Members." form is received in the PERA office, or on the date when the term of office commences, whichever date is later. Contributions are to be computed on all Options For Officials With Past qualified salary earned from the effective date of en- rollment. - El Service Officials Enrolled In DCP May Pay Past Employee and employer contributions are to be Contributions paid to PERA at least monthly. Contributions are submitted along with a Defined Contribution Deduc- Elected officials who exercise their option to par- son Report. This Deduction Report is a three -part ticipate in the Defined Contribution Plan, and who document. The original is salmon in color, the first have previous uncovered service as an elected official, copy, white, and the second copy, yellow. The salmon may pay contributions on that past service and invest and white copies are to be submitted to PERA when them in the Defined Contribution Plan. Uncovered payments are made. The employer is to retain the service is service as an elected official for which the yellow copy. elected official did not participate in a public or private employer contributory pension plan, including PERA's Basic, Coordinated, or Police and Fire Plans. This means that DCP participants who had previous PERA service as an elected official, and who took a 4 refund of employee contributions at termination of conditions must be met: this elected position, may not repay these contribu- (1) an elected official must have served previously in tions and invest them in the Defined Contribution a PERA - eligible elected position; Plan. (2) the elected official must have chosen not to exercise his or her option to pay PERA contri- butions on earnings from this elected position; and The amount of past contributions are computed (3) the official's past compensation must have met the using the Coordinated or Basic contribution rates in PERA earnings threshold in effect at the time. effect at the time the service was rendered. If the participant chooses to pay these past contributions, the participant's employer will be obligated to pay If all of these conditions are met, the official may pur- the corresponding employer contribution applicable chase prior service. The purchase price is the amount at the time along with the employer additional share of funds that must be set aside now to pay for the ad- in effect, if any. Payment of these past contributions ditional pension that will be paid at retirement. The also requires payment, by both participant and price of the additional pension depends upon the employer, of 6 percent interest compounded annually. official's current age, projected average salary, and years of service. The calculation assumes that funds used to make the purchase will be invested and earn ' Participants may choose to . pay all or part of these interest until retirement. A simplified example will _ past contributions. Also, payments may be made in help illustrate how purchase of prior service works. annual installments. The IRS limits payment of past contributions in a calendar year to 25 percent of eligible earnings. Generally, eligible earnings are Mary Jones is an elected county official whose term gross salary from elected service minus contributions began two years ago. Mary chose not to join PERA to qualified tax - deferred plans. For elected officials at the beginning of her term. However, she changed participating in the DCP, eligible earnings will be, at her mind and has decided to begin contributing to the minimum, gross salary minus the 5 percent employer Coordinated Fund. Ten years ago Mary served a two- and 5 percent employee contributions to the plan. If year term in another county elective position, but elected officials contribute to other tax deferred plans chose not to participate in PERA at that time. To cal - from this salary, these contributions must also be sub- culate the cost of prior service, PERA performs two tracted to arrive at eligible earnings. computations. First, PERA estimates the value of the - pension Mary will earn on her present job, assuming Officials In The Coordinated Plan May that she does not purchase any past service. PERA Purchase Prior Service Credit uses Mary's present age (32) and salary level to es- timate that her pension will be $888 per month at Purchases of prior service may be made by elected retirement. officials who are or become members of PERA's Basic or Coordinated Plans who have previous un- covered elected service. In purchasing prior service, Next, PERA adds 4 years (two years from her un- members pay for the increase in pension that will be covered service in her former position and 2 years of paid at retirement because additional service credits her uncovered service from her present position) of were purchased. Elected officials in the Coordinated service credit to the formula. The total pension at or Basic Plans may have two ways to make such a pur- retirement is projected to be $1,025 per month with chase. One way is to purchase the service credits that the addition of 4 years of service. The increase in pen - could have been, but were not, earned had the official sion is $137 per month ($1,025 - 888 = $137). If elected to participate in a PERA plan while in purchased, this $137 increase in pension will be paid elected office. The other way is to repay a refund, if a for Mary's expected lifetime (that is from retirement refund was issued following termination of past public to death). PERA uses actuarial tables to determine employment covered by a PERA plan. that $13,657 must be invested now in order to pay $137 per month for Mary's expected lifetime. This Purchase Of Past Uncovered Service $13,657 is the cost of purchasing prior service. Offi- cials may purchase all or part of their prior service . , To be eligible to purchase prior service, several and pay interest at 6 percent compounded annually. Also, prior service may be paid as a single lump sum 5 or in annual installments over five years. Employers 2. PERA has mailed these annual earnings forms to may, at their discretion, pay a portion of the cost of all known PERA employers in Minnesota. The the prior service. Payment options and the specific form may also be obtained by calling the PERA procedures for payment of past contributions into the office and asking for the Benefits Department. DCP are discussed below. 3. The employer must supply annual calendar -year salary paid to the official in the years of uncovered elected service. The form also calls for: Repayment Of Refund • name of official, Repaying a refund restores service credits forfeited * current address, when the refund was taken. To repay a refund, the member must pay the amount of the refund itself • beginning and ending dates of terms of office, along with 6 percent interest compounded annually. The earliest a refund may be repaid is 18 months after • date of birth, reinstatement as a PERA member. The latest a 0 Social Security number, refund can be repaid is 6 months following retirement. • PERA number, if any, • spouse's name, if any, and birth date, • name and address of the governmental employer, Procedures For Purchases and The following paragraphs set forth the steps • projected retirement date (only for officials that must be taken to pay past contributions or pur- interested in purchasing prior service). chase prior service. 4. Upon completion, the employer should submit the earnings record form to the PERA office. Only officials who elect to come into the Defined Contribution Plan may make past contributions on un- 5. Upon receipt, PERA will compute the total cost covered service. And only officials who are or to purchase prior service, payment of past become members of the Coordinated or Basic Plans contributions, or both and mail these figures to the may purchase prior service at actuarial cost or repay elected official. The letter will supply instructions a refund. to employers and elected officials about how payments are to be submitted 1. Elected officials interested in making a purchase should contact their employers to obtain a form entitled "Record of Annual Earnings for Elected Officials." Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota 514 Saint Peter Street;'Suite 200 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 296- 7460 .1800:: 652 -9026 6 y ELECTED OFFICIAL OPTIONS Quick Reference Present PERA With Past Without Past Coordinated or Basic Elective Service Elective Service Members May elect DCP from July 1, May elect DCP from July 1, • If electing DCP 1990 through June 30, 1991 and 1990 through June 30, 1991 and pay 5 percent contributions on contribute 5 percent of future future salary. Participant may salary to PERA's DCP. then apply for a refund of PERA employee contributions, or defer an annuity, if member has at least 3 years of service. In addition, may pay contributions on past uncoverd service and invest them in DCP. • If electing to remain in Continue Coordinated Continue Coordinated the Coordinated or Basic contributions of 4.23 percent contributions of 4.23 percent Pl (or 8.23 if Basic) of future (or 8.23 if Basic) of future salary to PERA. Also, may salary to PERA. purchase past uncovered Officials Not service at actuarial cost. Presently In A PERA Plan. May elect DCP anytime while May elect DCP anytime while • If electing DCP. in office and contribute 5 in office and contribute 5 percent of future salary to percent of future salary to PERA. In addition, may pay PERA.- past contributions on previous uncovered elective service and invest them in DCP. • If electing Coordinated May elect to enroll in the May elect to enroll in the Plan. Coordinated Plan anytime Coordinated Plan anytime while in office and contribute while in office and contribute 4.23 percent of future salary to 4.23 percent of future salary to PERA. May also: a purchase PERA. )P past uncovered service at actuarial cost, and b) repay a PERA refund 18 months after reinstatement. • If remaining out of both No options to exercise. No options to exercise. PERA plans. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/27/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING GROUP CURBSIDE RECYCLING RULES *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title **************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report omments below /attache SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) Attached please find a copy of the proposed rules governing curbside recycling. These rules are proposed to be common among the three members of the HRG and must be adopted individually by each city council. We previously adopted portions of these rules. These proposed rules add rules for recycling in apartments. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Council's favorable consideration of a motion adopting these rules and regulations. HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP CURBSIDE COLLECTION SERVICE RULES AND POLICIES EXEMPTION TO SERVICE FEE REQUEST PROCEDURE: If a resident requests to be exempt from paying for the recycling service fee, s /he must submit their request in writing to the Chair of HRG. The Chair will place the request on the next HRG meeting agenda for consideration by the Board. In order to be granted exemption to the service fee, a resident must be able to provide the City with receipts from alternative recycling methods of glass, cans, and newspaper waste generated from their residence on a monthly basis, or the re si dent mus Board L. Ci�11.LUJ. - ir u Cmstc''nces rhiv:: show the that it would be physically impossible for the resident to participate in the program (even if they were provided carryout collection service), or the resident is able to prove extreme financial hardship. CONTAINER REPLACEMENT POLICY: All residents are entitled to receive one free replacement recycling container in the case where their container is stolen or destroyed at no fault of their own. Under other circumstances, residents must pay the full cost of the replacement container plus tax. In the event that a tenant does not leave the container for the next renter, apartment owners will not be given a free replacement container. CONTAINER PLACEMENT POLICY: All curbside recycling containers must be stored out of view from the street. Containers may be placed on the curb for collection at sunset the day previous to collection day and must be removed by sunset on collection day. ADOPTED BY THE HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP: August 2, 1990 ADOPTED BY THE BROO�;LVN CENTER CTMV COUNCIL: 7 -90 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/27/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: SETTING 1991 BUDGET HEARING DATES /MODIFICATION OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER MEETING SCHEDULES *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) State law now requires Council to set two budget hearing dates between November 15 and December 20 of each year. The first is the formal budget hearing and the second is a reconvened budget hearing date, should it be necessary. Schools and counties, under the law, are required to pick first and then cities and other taxing districts. Cities cannot choose meeting dates which coincide with • any school district or county date. Attached please find a calendar which indicates our best effort at modifying your meeting schedules in November and December of 1990 to meet the following criteria. 1. Meet state requirements for budget hearing and reconvened hearing dates. 2. Try to limit meetings as much as possible to one night per week. 3. Provide for two budget work sessions prior to formal budget hearing dates. 4. Avoid holiday dates. 5. Establish November 6 as an official meeting for the purposes of canvassing local election results. Obviously in an attempt to meet these various criteria, options are limited. Please understand the only dates you are required to set Monday evening are the formal budget hearing date and the reconvened hearing date. You could defer for further discussion the establishing of any and all of the other dates, but it is required that we notify the county before September 1 of the two formal budget hearing dates. We are presenting all of these dates to you at this time so it will give you an opportunity to review and check your calendar and give as much time as possible for you to establish the most convenient meeting schedule. It is your staff's observation with the new hearing requirements for the budget consideration and the need to coordinate these hearings and avoid Monday holidays, the Council may want to again consider moving their regular meetings from Monday nights to another night during the week. Between the Monday holidays and coordinating with other • agencies on their budget hearing dates, it is almost impossible to maintain any kind of consistent Monday night meeting schedule, especially during the latter part of the year and during some other months of the year. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Council pass a motion modifying your November and December 1990 meeting schedule as follows: 1. Establish November 6 as a council meeting for canvassing local elections. 2. Establish council 1991 budget work sessions on November 13 and November 27. 3. Leave November 19 as a regular scheduled council meeting. 4. Leave December 3, 1990, as a regular council meeting (this date could be canceled if there aren't sufficient items for the agenda requiring a council meeting). 5. Establish December 5 and December 18 as dates for initial and reconvened 1991 budget hearings. 6. Cancel the regular scheduled December 17 council meeting and move that meeting to December 18. S OCTOBER S'-1 T W T F 8 O CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES 7 9 10 11 19 13 DATES TAKEN BY COUNTY AND 147 16 17 IS 19 N SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET HEARIPIGS 2ti� 22. 2 eJ 2 � � � � � � � DATPOSED BUDGET "WORK SESSION" 28- 29 30 31 a PROPOSED BUDGET HEARING DATES NOVEMBER LEGAL HOLIDAYS M T W T F S Z Z 3 0 7 8 9 10 �. 14 17 187 21 23 24 25 20 1 28 29 30 DECEMBER 8N.1 T W T F 8 1 2 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 ZO 1@ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2s 27 28 29 30 31 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 27, 1990: CIGARETTE (OVER THE COUNTER SALES) j Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. City Clerk GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE Waste Control 95 West Ivy Avenue Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. 4000 Hamel Road Sanitarian _ l- ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT C Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Park & Rec Dept. 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. 'jam Builders Square 3600 - 63rd Ave. N. I "�' 1'�.U✓}1 Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Associated Mechanical Contractors P. 0. Box 237 Bell Air Heating 815 West 106th Street Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS fib` Initial: Maurice & Barbara Moriarty 2825 67th Lane N. Omar & Kathrine Schmidt 5352 72nd Circle N. Leota Spalla 5364 72nd Circle N. Tom & Wendy Wurr 5422 72nd Circle N. W. E. Lemon 5428 -34 72nd Circle N. Arthur & Dolores Kvamme 5529 Aldrich Drive N. Manuel & Faye Silva 6325 Brooklyn Blvd. Russell & Anna Scott 5400 Bryant Ave. N. Saw - Mehone Tebedge 5511 Emerson Ave. N. Jeff Austin 5500 James Ave. N. Brett & Terry Parker 5242 Lakeside Place N. Richard & Kathy Allen 5336 Lilac Drive N. Casmir & Doris Stachowski 5327 -29 Queen Ave. N. Gene & Anna Gullord 5328 -30 Queen Ave. N. Wai A. Chan 6685 Xerxes Place N. Renewal: Lloyd J. Waldusky Georgetown Park Townhouses Ryan Lake Partners 3401 -13 47th Ave. N. Lyle Miller & Russel Domke 3513 47th Ave. N. Harriet J. Berg 620 53rd Ave. N. Steve & Donna Schweim 3512 53rd Ave. N. Douglas & JoMarie Hentges 5206 63rd Ave. N. M & J Properties 2937 69th Lane N. Keith L. Nordby 5964 Brooklyn Blvd. James Ferrara 6031 Brooklyn Blvd. Ron & Ruth Shodeen 5448 Dupont Ave. N. Paul Hinck 4715 France Ave. N. Khalid Mahmud 5843 Fremont Ave. N. Jerry Truman 5519 -23 Lyndale Ave. N. Kenneth W. Kunz 5601 Lyndale Ave. N. Roland Scherber 7212 Newton Ave. N. Mrs. Paul Enge 4748 Twin Lake Ave. N. Harshad Bhatt 7206 -12 West River Road Richard & Sharon Krawiecki 5209 Xerxes Ave. N. .. Q , On— / Director of Planning 4k and Inspection SIGN HANGER J� Schad -Tracy Signs, Inc. P. 0. Box 364 Building Official Q1_ GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk l