Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 03-26 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 26, 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. Proclamation: a. Declaring April 21, 1990, as a Day of Spiritual Rededication in Brooklyn Center 7. Resolutions: a. Authorizing the Finance Director to Issue a Master Note for the Transfer of Funds from the Investment Trust Fund to the Recycling /Refuse Fund *b. Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) 28,000 GVW Cab /Chassis -1990 approved budget item. *c. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of Dump Body and Hydraulics for 28,000 GVW Cab /Chassis -1990 approved budget item. *d. Recognizing the Achievement of Cheryl Zaffke -Ms. Zaffke has swum 500 miles in the community center swimming pool. *e. Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Purchase of Semi - Automatic Weapons - *f. Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget to Provide Funding for Purchase of Semi - Automatic Weapons CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 26, 1990 8. ordinance: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 -104 of the City Ordinances Authorizing the Removal or Destruction of Advertisements, Buildings or Structures on the Public Highways, Streets or Alleys -This amendment would allow the City Manager or his designee to remove any items placed in the City's rights -of -way which are in violation of the existing ordinance. This item was offered for a first reading on February 12, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on February 21, 1990, and was offered for a second reading on March 12, 1990, at which time it was continued to this evening's meeting. It is recommended the public hearing be closed and consideration of the ordinance be tabled to a later date. 9. Recess to EDA 10. Public Hearing: a. Resolution Approving a Modified Project Plan for Housing Development Project No. 01 and a Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 01 11. Discussion Item: a. Volunteer Recognition Event 12. Public Hearings (8 p.m. in Constitution Hall) a. Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Improvements to 69th Avenue North from West City Limits to Dupont Avenue - Notices of this hearing have been published in the City's official newspaper and individual notices have been sent to the owners of all properties within one block of 69th Avenue North. In addition, three public informational meetings were conducted on February 28, March 1 and March 5, 1990, after mailed notices of these meetings were sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue North. Approximately 250 persons attended those informational meetings. It is recommended that the public hearing be conducted in accordance with the following format: Part 1: City staff and consultant present an overview of the overall 69th Avenue corridor improvements - from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue Part 2: City staff and consultant presentation covering the proposed first phase improvements - from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway (I.E. Improvement Project 1990 -10) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 26, 1990 Part 3: Open public hearing for comments regarding first phase improvements - from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway Part 4: Open public hearing for comments regarding overall corridor improvement - from west City limits to Dupont Avenue Part 5: Close public hearing Part 6: Discussion by City Council Part 7: Consideration of the following resolution: Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project 1990 -10, Reconstruction of 69th Avenue North from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 26, 1990 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Resolution: a. Approving a Modified Project Plan for Housing Development Project No. 01 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 01 Requesting the Brooklyn Center City Council to Conduct a Public Hearing Thereon; Recommending Approval of the Plans 4. Adjournment PROCLAMATION �0 CL- A Day of Spiritual Rededication in Brooklyn Center WHEREAS, in 1952 an event was inaugurated by Christian 0 Leadership Groups in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives; and WHEREAS, the Annual National Prayer Breakfast has become a time for the rededication of the individual and the Nation to God; and WHEREAS, many states and local communities have sponsored similar events at the state and local level; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee of concerned citizens have joined together as the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast Committee, Inc., to stage an annual Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast for a similar rededication of local community leaders and business representatives and our City to high Judeo- Christian ideals; and WHEREAS, the committee is planning the Twelfth Annual Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast on the 21st day of April, 1990; and WHEREAS, this years event will be held at the newly renovated Earle Brown Heritage Center; and WHEREAS, in recognition of our historic and religious heritage, the committee has selected as its theme "Heritage of Hope "; and WHEREAS, Richard K. Allison, former actor at the Chanhassen Dinner Theater will be the featured speaker /musician. NOW BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED by the Brooklyn Center City Council 1. That Saturday, April 21, 1990, be designated as "A Day of Spiritual Rededication in Brooklyn Center." 2. That it calls upon all citizens to reflect upon our heritage and join in quiet reverence and dedication and 3. That it calls upon the citizens of Brooklyn Center to join hundreds of their neighbors and fellow citizens at the Annual Prayer Breakfast on Saturday, April 21, 1990, at the Historic Earle Brown Heritage Center. Dated Mayor Attest Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3 a Q Agenda Item Number za. (IRSDESC7) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A MASTER NOTE FOR THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT TRUST FUND TO THE RECYCLING /REFUSE FUND DEPT. APPROV _ L: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:�,.<�;. ° No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached In the past, the City has issued Temporary Improvement Master Notes, • and sold them to its Investment Trust Fund, to temporarily finance Special Assessment improvements which are later permanently financed by the sale of long -term improvement bonds. The need now exists to use this same financing vehicle to provide temporary financing for the Recycling /Refuse Fund. This fund was created in 1989 to start a recycling program for city residents. Revenues were expected to be a combination of user fees charged to residents and grants from Hennepin County. However, no grants have been recieved, leaving the fund in need of temporary financing. (IRECYCL2) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A MASTER NOTE FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT TRUST FUND TO THE RECYCLING /REFUSE UTILITY FUND ------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, in the past, the City has issued Temporary Improvement Master Notes when a project is approved to serve as authorization for project borrowing during the entire construction period; and WHEREAS, the City began operating a Recycling Fund during 1989 which was to be financed by user fees and grants from Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, grants which were expected from Hennepin County have not been received, creating a cash deficit condition and a need for interim financing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has established standard interest rates to be charged on Temporary Improvement Notes which were 12% through the end of 1989 and then changed to l0% by Resolution 90 -03. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: I. The Recycling /Refuse Fund is authorized to issue a Temporary Improvement Master Note to finance operations until grants and user fees are collected. 2. The City of Brooklyn Center Investment Trust Fund is authorized to purchase this note. 3. The annual rate of interest to be charged on this note be set at 12% for 1989 and 10% thereafter. 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 3/26/90 Agenda Item Number - - 7 6 + •✓ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) 28,000 GVW Cab /Chassis Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of Dump Body and Hydraulics for 28,000 GVW Cab /Chassis DEPT. APPROVAL: Administrative Aide Signature - title a MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: : f 9 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached An appropriation was approved in the 1990 budget within department 42 for the purchase of a dump truck/plow. Bids and quotes have been taken for the cab /chassis and dump body /hydraulics. The cost of the snow plow equipment has not yet been added. I recommend acceptance of the low bid from Boyer Ford Trucks for the 28,000 GVW cab /chassis. I also recommend acceptance of the low quote from Crysteel for the dump body and hydraulics. • 7b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 28,000 GVW CAB /CHASSIS WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1990 budget for the purchase of one (1) 28,000 GVW cab /chassis; and WHEREAS, two bids were received as follows: COMPANY BID Boyer Ford Trucks $24,446.00 Lakeland Ford Trucks $24,616.92 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) 28,000 GVW cab /chassis from Boyer Ford Trucks in the amount of $24,446.00 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being to P g ken 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 QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF DUMP BODY AND HYDRAULICS FOR 28,000 GVW CAB /CHASSIS WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1990 budget for the purchase of a dump body and hydraulics to be used on a 28,000 GVW cab /chassis; and WHEREAS, three quotations were received as follows: COMPANY QUOTE Crysteel $7,018 MacQueen Equipment $7,344 Boyum Equipment $8,025 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of a dump body and hydraulics from Crysteel in the amount of $7,018 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i 7c/ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CHERYL ZAFFKE WHEREAS, over a five -year period, Cheryl Zaffke, 3726 Yates Avenue North, Crystal, Minnesota, has swam 500 miles in the Brooklyn Center pool; and WHEREAS, this achievement reflects the dedication, skill, and perseverance of Cheryl Zaffke; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the City Council recognizes her accomplishment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the achievement of Cheryl Zaffke is recognized and she is hereby congratulated by the Brooklyn Center City Council. 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 31 , :P, o /0 Agenda Item Number_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF SEMI- AUTOMATIC WEAPONS RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF SEMI - AUTOMATIC WEAPONS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title - Jd'mes Lindsay, Chief of Po ' MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) The city has received bids for the purchase of semi - automatic weapons for the police department. The low bid was received from Stretcher's. The bid was for $369.00 per weapon and $17.00 per spare magazine. This would be a total bid cost of $17,370.00. Streicher's has given us a delivery date of 120 days from date of order. The department has also received quotes for the holsters at $56.00 each and ammunition pouches at $21.00 each that will be required for each officer. This would make a total price of $3,465.00 for holsters and ammo pouches. The total monies required for this purchase are then $20,835.00. The department currently has $15,977.20 available in forfeiture monies. This would leave a balance of $4,857.80 needed from council contingency funds to complete the purchase. The police department has also registered two officers to attend the Smith & Wesson Academy in Springfield, Massachusetts and become certified as transitional firearms instructors for the department. The course is scheduled for May 2 through 4, 1990. At this time, we estimate the costs for sending the two officers to be approximately $3,000.00. We will be paying the expenses out of the police department's training funds, and will request transfer of funds as reimbursement for these expenses after the training, when the exact costs are known. RECOMMENDATION: • The city council approve the resolution g acce tin the bid and authorizing the accepting purchase of semi - automatic weapons; and approve the resolution transferring monies from the police forfeiture account and council contingency funds for the purchase of semi - automatic weapons, and holsters and ammunition pouches. Member introduced the following is resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SEMI - AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to take bids for the purchase of 45 semi - automatic weapons and 45 spare magazines; and WHEREAS, two bids were received as follows: COMPANY BID /WEAPON BID /SPARE MAG Streicher's $369.00 $17.00 Law Enforcement Equip. Co. $399.64 $20.56 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of 45 semi- automatic weapons and 45 spare magazines from Streicher's in the amount of $17,370.00 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING FORFEITED PROPERTY AND CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SEMI - AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND RELATED SUPPLIES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ---------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C.665 provides for seizure and forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and proceeds of crime and contraband; and WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under said laws may be used only in the performance of official duties of the appropriate agency and may not be used for any other purpose; and WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of the property may be used by the Brooklyn Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating fund for use in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 88 -195 on November 21, 1988, did authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate said proceeds to the Police Department Budget as they are received to the extent that said proceeds exceed five thousand dollars in any calendar year and then said excess will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has accepted bids and quotations in the amount of $20,835 for semi - automatic weapons and related supplies; and WHEREAS, there is currently available $15,977 from forfeiture monies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize appropriations to purchase semi - automatic weapons in the amount of $17,370 and related supplies in the amount of $3,465 to the Police Protection Budget as follows: Other Equipment Account No. 4552 $17,370 Clothing and Personal Equipment Account No. 4224 $ 3,465 $20,835 RESOLUTION NO. 90- i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to increase the Estimated Revenues from Forfeited Drug Money, Account No. 3897, by $15,977 and to transfer $4,858 from the Unallocated Departmental Expenses, Contingency Account No. 4995, to fund the purchase. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 1 2th day of March , 19 90 , at 7 *30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 27 regarding the obstruction of or damage to highways, streets and alleys. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 -104 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF ADVERTISEMENTS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS STREETS OR ALLEYS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY F 0 BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 27 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 27 -104 OBSTRUCTION OF OR DAMAGE TO HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND ALLEYS. The regulatory provisions of [Chapter 160,] Minnesota Statutes Section 160.27[(5)], Subd. 5 [as amended by Laws of 1976], relating to the obstruction of or damage to highways is hereby adopted by reference and shall have the same force and effect as though fully set out herein. [The terms of this section shall apply to all highways, streets, and alleys within the City of Brooklyn Center. All violations hereof shall be prosecuted by the city attorney for the City of Brooklyn Center.] All . rovisions of said Section 1602 d p 7. Sub 5 shall apply to the right -of -way of all highways streets and alleys in the City. The City Manager or the Manager's designee may take down, remove or destroy any advertisement building structure or obstruction in or upon any ighway, street or alley in violation of this section Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED PROJECT PLAN FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 01 AND A MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 01 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (City), as follows: Section 2. Recitals 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (HRA) adopted a project plan (Project Plan) for the project area (Project Area) in accordance with Minn Stat Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) in accordance with Minn Stat Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (collectively, the Plans) for the Brookwood Project (TIF District) and said Plans were thereafter approved by the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center (City). 1.02. Responsibility for the Project Area and TIF District was shifted from the HRA to the Economic Development Authority for Brooklyn Center (EDA). 1.03. Changes in the public purposes and goals in the Project Area have prompted the EDA to prepare modified Plans. 1.04. The modified Plans are contained in a document entitled "Modified Housing Development Project Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan (Brookwood)" dated August 16 1989, now on file with the EDA. 1.05. The modified Plans were referred to the Brooklyn Center planning commission which on November 16, 1989, found that they conform to and are not in conflict with the general plans for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. 1.06. On February 26, 1989 the EDA approved the modified Plans for the Project Area and TIF District and referred them to the city council for public hearing and consideration as provided by state statute. 1.07. Copies of the modified Plans have been forwarded to Independent School District No. 286 and Hennepin County along with a notice of the public hearing as required by Minn Stat Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (TIF Act). RESOLUTION NO. O F 3.03. The modified TIF Plan conforms to the general plans for development of the City as a whole as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 3.04. The modified TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area and TIF District by private enterprise. Section 4. Modified Project Plan and TIF Plan Adopted 4.01. The modified Project Plan is approved. 4.02. The modified TIF Plan is approved. 4.03. The geographic boundaries of the Project Area have been expanded and are now as outlined in the modified Project Plan. There has been no change to the boundaries of the TIF District as a result of this modification. 4.04. The EDA is requested to file a copy of the modified Plans with the Minnesota commissioner of revenue as required by the TIF Act. 4.05. The city clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the EDA. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 1. 08. The city council has fully reviewed the contents of the modified Plans and has this date conducted a public hearing thereon at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Findings; Project Plan 2.01. It is hereby found and determined that within the Project Area there exist conditions of economic obsolescence, physical deterioration, underutilization, and inappropriate uses of land. 2.02. It is further specifically found and determined that: a) the land in the Project Area would not be made available for redevelopment without the public intervention and financial assistance described in the modified Plans; b) the modified Project Plan for the Project Area will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise; c) the modified Project Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 2.03. The findings in this section are made in compliance with state statute for the purpose of showing the City's intent to exercise, in conjunction with the EDA, the powers granted to the City and the EDA by state statute. Section 3. Findings; Tax Increment Financing District 3.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable to the sound and orderly development and redevelopment of the Project Area, the TIF District, and the City as a whole, and for the protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, that the authority of the TIF Act be exercised by the EDA and the City to provide public financial assistance to the Project Area and TIF District. 3.02. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the EDA and the City, that the redevelopment of the Project Area and TIF District outlined in the modified Plans could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is necessary. VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION EVENT WHAT: An event to recognize volunteers in Brooklyn Center. WHY: A volunteer recognition event helps to create good public relations in the form of volunteers feeling appreciated for their efforts. An organization's reputation is enhanced especially when volunteers encourage others to participate on the basis of their own positive experience. WHO: Volunteer coaches from the following organizations. American Little League National Little League Babe Ruth Brooklyn Center Parks & Recreation Youth Soccer & Softball League Youth Football Youth Hockey and Mayor and City Council WHEN: Thursday, April 26, 1990 Social 6:30 p.m., Dinner 7 p.m. # of People: Approximately 150 - 200 j CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meetin Date 3/26/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH DEPT. APPROVAL: 9 /fie/ SY KNAP DIRE= OR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attache A public hearing regarding the proposed 69th Avenue improvements is scheduled to be held at 8 :00 p.m., March 26th in Constitution Hall. (The Council meeting ' will begin at 7:00 in the Council Chambers, then adjourn to the hearing in Constitution Hall). This booklet contains the following information: • Information sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue from West City Limits to Dupont Avenue under cover letter dated January 24, 1990 • Summary of informational meetings held on January 31st, February 1st ' and February 5th • Informational packet submitted to the City Council on February 26th. On that date the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -41, which set the date for this public hearing • Notices and information sent to property owners regarding the March 26th public hearing. (Note: a general notice was sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue from the West City Limits to Dupont Avenue. The official notice of hearing, a copy of the ' Engineer's Feasibility Report, and a copy of Resolution No. 90 -41 were sent to all property owners abutting 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway) • Survey of residential property owners abutting 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway It is recommended that the public hearing be conducted in accordance with the following format: Part 1: City staff and consultant present an overview of the overall 69th Avenue corridor improvements - from the West City Limits to Dupont Avenue Part 2: City staff and consultant presentation covering the proposed first phase improvements - from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway ' (i.e. Improvement Project 1990 -10) Part 3: Open public hearing for comments regarding first phase improvements - from Noble Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway Part 4: Open public hearing for comments regarding overall corridor improvement from West City Limits to Dupont Avenue ' Part 5: Close public hearing ' Part 6: Discussion by City Council Part 7: Consideration of the attached resolution which orders the project to be built Note 1: A blank has been left for selection of the alternate alignment to be used (A, B or C). This selection should ' be made prior to formal consideration of the resolution Note 2: If a vote is taken on this resolution, it should be taken by roll call. Because this project was initiated by ' Council action and because it is proposed to levy special assessments to cover a part of the costs, adoption of this resolution requires a 4/5 vote ' The following is a tentative implementation schedule for completion of this project if it is ordered by the City Council: ' April -July, 1990 - development of contracts for consulting services, including surveying, aerial photogrammetry, geotechnical engineering services, development of construction plans ' and specifications, land acquisition services, etc. May- October,1990 - development of final alignment, geometric designs and ' right -of -way map; and development of agreement with Hennepin County for improvements west of Brooklyn Boulevard June,1990 to December, 1991 - right -of -way acquisition and clearance, development of construction plans and specifications, obtain permits, reviews and approvals by various agencies I • Summer, 1991 - possible start of construction in Palmer Lake area. (i.e. placement of surcharge materials which must be in place for 6 to 12 months to allow consolidation of subgrade before final grading is completed). ' Early 1992 - award contract for general construction to be completed in 1992 Late 1992 or Early 1993 - award contract for landscape plantings to be completed by early summer of 1993 0 a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -10, RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, Resolution No. 90 -41, adopted on the 26th day of February, 1990, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed reconstruction of 69th Avenue North from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway; and ' WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing thereon was held on the 26th day of March 1990, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that the complexity of this project including right -of -way acquisition ' proceedings, obtaining required permits, etc, may not allow construction work to be placed under contract within the one -year period generally authorized by Minnesota Statues, 1988, Section 429.041 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. 90 -41, based on alignment alternate as described in the Engineer's Feasibility Report for this ' improvement project 2. the Director of Public Works is hereby designated as the Engineer /Project Manager for this improvement. He shall prepare ' plans and specifications for the making of this improvement, utilizing consulting services in accordance with contracts therefore as approved by the City Council ' 3. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1988, Section 429.041, Subdivision 1, contracts may be let for all or part of the work of the ' improvement or an order may be made by the Council to undertake all or a part of the work of the improvement by day labor or otherwise as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 1988, Section 429.041, Subd. 2, at any time prior to July 1, 1993. Date Mayor ' ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 I CITY 630 SHINGLE PARKWAY C OF :BYROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Property Owners and Residents January 24, 1990 in 69th Avenue North Corridor from West City Limits to Dupont Avenue ' FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager RE: Neighborhood Meetings to Discuss Improvement ' of 69th Avenue North Enclosed is a summary report regarding proposed future improvements to 69th ' Avenue North. Although a substantial amount of work and effort has been expended to investigate the feasibility of the proposed improvement, no commitments have been made to proceed with any of these improvements. ' We believe it is appropriate to present the proposal to you in a series of informal meetings so that you may become acquainted with the proposal and so that you have an opportunity to discuss the proposal and to advise us of your concerns, your needs and your opinions. With your cooperation, we hope to develop a coordinated plan which will serve your needs, the needs of your neighborhood, and the needs of all City residents. Accordingly we have scheduled the following informal meetings: Meeting Segments to be Date & Time Location Discussed Wed., Jan. 31, 1990; 7:00 p.m. (all meetings will be held in 1 and 2 Thurs., Feb. 1, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Constitution Hall, Brooklyn 3 ' Mon., Feb. 5, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Center Community Center - 1 and 2 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway) You are invited to attend any or all of these meetings. However, our emphasis ' during the first and third meetings will be on the area west of Shingle Creek Parkway, while our emphasis during the second meeting will be on the area east of Shingle Creek Parkway. We will appreciate your attendance and participation ' in these meetings. As noted above, this proposal is still under discussion. All concerns, ' questions, ideas and comments brought to these meetings will help the City of Brooklyn Center to better understand and meet your needs. Following the conclusion of these meetings, we expect that the City Council will conduct at least one formal public hearing regarding the proposal.... probably in March or ' April of 1990. No decision to proceed (or not to proceed) with the proposal will be made ntil after completion of the formal public hearing(s). roaemuueiurnr Gera Splinter, City Manager SUMMARY REPORT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH INTRODUCTION This report is an overview of the studies to date regarding proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North. These studies have been conducted by ' Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), consulting engineers, in cooperation with City staff. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This report focuses on 69th Avenue North from the Brooklyn Center /Brooklyn Park ' border to Dupont Avenue North, a distance of 2.8 miles. From the west City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard, 69th Avenue North is Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 30. From Brooklyn Boulevard to Dupont Avenue, 69th Avenue is a Municipal State Aid street. The existing right -of -way is primarily sixty -six (66) feet wide. Pedestrians and bicyclists must use the shoulder from Palmer Lake Park to Dupont Avenue North, while a sidewalk is ' . provided on one side of the roadway from the west City limits to Palmer Lake Park. Pedestrian trails are provided in Palmer Lake Park. Average daily traffic is approximately 9,000 vehicles. per day from Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard (Segment 1), 13,000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway (Segment 2), and 6,500 vehicles per day from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue North (Segment 3). ' PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North are intended to: improve traffic safety, improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve the level of service at major intersections, and enhance the environment in the neighborhoods within the project corridor by reducing congestion and air pollution and by providing additional landscaping. The improvements proposed for 69th Avenue North include grading, curb and gutter, bikeway /walkway, surfacing and landscaping. All improvements must be approved by MNDOT's state aid office. Due to the variations in existing and projected traffic volumes and in traffic characteristics between the three segments of 69th Avenue, the proposed improvements have been designed to meet the individual needs of each segment, i.e.. -1- Segment Proposed No. Description Improvement • 1 From west City limit to A 3 -lane section is proposed (one lane Brooklyn Boulevard in each direction, with a continuous left -turn lane) 2 From Brooklyn Boulevard Three alternates are under consideration, to Shingle Creek Parkway i.e.: two 4 -lane alternates (A & B) and one 3 -lane alternate (C) - (Note: The 3 -lane alternate will not receive state aid approval unless a variance from standards is obtained.) 3 From Shingle Creek Parkway A 2 -lane section to Dupont Avenue North Note 1: At the Brooklyn Boulevard intersection, additional lanes need to be added to increase the capacity of the intersection. Note 2: It is proposed to correct existing alignment deficiencies in the Palmer Lake Park area by flattening curves and moving slightly into Palmer Lake Park. Note 3: Implementation of either of Segment No. 2's 4 -lane alternates would require acquisition of approximately 24 parcels of property. Implementation of Segment No. 2's 3 -lane alternate would require 1 0 acquisition of 10 parcels of property. Note 4: It is also proposed to realign the 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection to align Shingle Creek Parkway with the westerly leg ' of 69th Avenue North. _ COST ESTIMATE Following is a preliminary cost estimate for the various segments of the project. These estimates include the costs of right -of -way acquisition, engineering and administrative costs and the costs for construction. Alternates A or B Alternate C Segment Segment No. 2 Segment No. 2 No. Description �4 -lane alternates) (3 -lane alternate) 1 West City limits to $1.55 million $1.55 million Brooklyn Blvd. 2 Brooklyn Blvd. to 4.10 million 2.59 million Shingle Creek Pkwy. 3 Shingle Creek Pkwy. to 1.45 million 1.45 million Dupont Avenue North 0 Totals $7.1 million $5.59 million -2- ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES h the Palmer Lake Park h Because the proposed realignment of 69th Avenue through . g g area would utilize 3.44 acres of the lands previously acquired with the use of Land and Conservation Fund grant funds, an application for amendment of the grant was prepared and submitted to the United States Department of Interior. That amendment, which provides for the acquisition of 7.5 acres of replacement land has been approved, and the replacement land has been acquired by the City. N I The City of Brooklyn Center has also prepared a discretionary Environmental. Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and submitted it to the required governmental agencies for their review and comments. Following receipt of comments from these agencies the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board has authorized the City to proceed with the project subject to obtaining needed permits. Copies of these documents and copies of an earlier, more detailed report (69TH ' AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE, as prepared by SEH and dated April 4, 1989) are available for public review at the office of the City Engineer in Brooklyn Center City Hall. PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE Following is a preliminary schedule for proposed improvements to the various segments of 69th Avenue: Segment Segment No. Description Preliminary Schedule 1 West City Limits to After 1992 (no definite schedule) Brooklyn Boulevard 2 Brooklyn Boulevard Right -of -way acquisition... 1990 and 1991 to Shingle Creek Pkwy. Construction.. .1992 3 Shingle Creek Parkway After 1992 (no definite schedule) to Dupont Avenue North THIS SUMMARY PREPARED BY Sy Knapp Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center 1 January 22, 1990 i • -3- City of Brooklyn Center 69th Avenue North From West City Limits to Dupont Avenue North J D L I IL LA ■ �.: _ 1 Y or . e g 'tb ,`Y ► L Y I R L A I I f A R I Sri r , =-= SEGMENT 1 4M w� Y ` ,a ~ r • II Y Y Y t ra .K. w. a .t. K y SEGMENT 2 SEGMENT 3 r � f .: � xrw:..t. r. �� senr, +t, r \ . _._4 x ww •.� PUBLIC NOTICE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS RE: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 69TH AVENUE NORTH WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH Informal neighborhood meetings will be held to provide opportunities to discuss pro - posals for the improvement of 69th Avenue North from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North (see map below): Meeting Segments to be ' Date & Time Location Discussed Wed., Jan. 31, 1990, 7:00 p.m. (all meetings will be held in 1 and 2 Thurs., Feb. 1, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Constitution Hall, Brooklyn 3 ' Mon., Feb. 5, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Center Community Center - 1 and 2 ' 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway) Individual notices of these meetings and a summary report regarding the propos- ed improvements are being sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue. Additional copies of the summary report may be obtained at the City Engineer's office, City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. You are invited to attend any or all of these meetings. As noted, emphasis during the first and third meetings will be directed to the area west of Shingle Creek Parkway, while emphasis during the second meeting will be directed to the area east of Shingle Creek Parkway. The purpose of these meetings is to present the proposal for public information and discussion. All concerns, questions, ideas and comments will assist the City in better understanding individual needs, neighborhood needs and the needs of the City. ' Following conclusion of these meetings the City Council will conduct at least one formal public hearing regarding the proposal - probably in March or April, 1990. No decision to proceed (or not be proceed) with the proposal will be made until after completion of the formal public hearing(s). ' By: G. G. Splinter, City Manager Published: Display Ad Brooklyn Center Post ... January 24, 1990 i I J0 (�0 SEGMENT 11 % I t SEGMENT 2 If� SEGMENT 3 ,i F- i 1_ F al It , 7F_I .j ! ! 1 69th Ave improvements discussed Public hearings to discuss possible changes on 69th Avenue from the Crystal border to Dupont Avenue have been sched- uled by city officials for Jan.31, Feb.1, and Feb.5 at 7 pm. in the Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. (See legal notice and map in this issue.) Designed to improve traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety on the busily traveled route, the changes would take place in three stages beginning later this year and costing up to $7.1 million. Realignment of 69th Avenue would require acquisi- tion of private properties as well as permission from the fed- eral government for utilization of parts of the Palmer Lake Park preserve. Widening of the highway to either three or four lanes is planned to alleviate problems resulting from the up to 13,000 vehicles using sections of the roadway daily. Nevertheless, the proposal could prove controversial with nearby residents, 800 of whom have been sent notices of the meetings. "We've held off a long time," notes City Manager Gerald Splinter of the proposal, which would go to the city council after the hearings. "But nothing is officially decided." Plans fo�69th ft ve.getreview a f �j up to 13,000 vehicles make By ,Ion Kerr `7 necessary some form of 69th Avenue changes, Van Wormer City plans for remodeling argued in seriousness. "We and widening 69th Avenue really don't think that just from Dupont to the Crystal leaving it alone is a good op- border got a mixed reception tion," he said. last week. A series of public hearings brought out numbers City proposals call for three of Brooklyn Center homeown- phases of construction begin - ers and residents from both ning later this year that could sides of the highway, and of cost up to $7.1 million and take the issue. out homes, businesses and part of Palmer Lake Park. "We have a couple of op- Hearing -goers responded to tions that have met with either three alternate plans that in- total enthusiasm or total cluded widening 69th Avenue disbelief," joked Glen Van to four lanes at some points by Wormer in introducing a study as early as 1992. done by Short, Elliot, Hen - drickson Inc. "You can have a "Why are we affecting 69th wider road by taking out some Avenue when the main effect neighbors across the street, is to help the traffic in Brook- depending on whether you like lyn Park ?" asked Lee Snapko them." to nods and applause from some. "We are the ones bear - Current traffic problems esulting from daily traffic of Hearings /see page 2 Hearing from page one _ in g t he brunt of y ears," said Mar Heitzi . be devalued with a three or peop cutting Y through our area. There's no "There comes a point where four -lane highway running by growth to Brooklyn Center in we have to realize that prog- it. I'd rather not see any of it this area, so growth must be to ress has to be made ... I think done," he said, adding that the north." they should take houses on several persons planned to both sides of the road if they start a petition drive. Short - Elliot's study showed need to." much of the traffic coming "We don't want to feel like from nearby businesses on Few speakers echoed that we're railroading this' thing Shingle Creek Parkway, how- approach, with most home or through," said City Manager ever, said Van Wormer, who business owners questioning Gerald Splinter, describing added that their projections of whether they would receive the process that would Con- over 35,000 vehicles daily by fair compensation for their tinue through more public; the year 2007 even assumes property losses or deprecia- hearings at the city council road improvements to alter- tion. "Selling the land to the level. "But we want to move nate highways such as Brook- city would probably get you at along the process so that peo- lyn Boulevard. Similarly, least as much money as you ple will know what properties more stop signs and police would get from any other are affected and can make patrols would have only a buyer , ' ' answered city plans." minimal discouraging effect engineer Sy Knapp. on the amount of traffic, he That approach seemed to said. At least one homeowner, agree with Steve Dockendorf. Jeff Trieb, doubted that the "My concern is that the city Other residents agreed with road - widening wouldn't have does something soon, because Van Wormer that current negative effects, however. it's going to affect my proper- ', problems were intolerable. "It's absolutely ludicrous to ty value either way. If they're "We've lived with this for ten say that your home isn't going going to do it, do it soon." 69th Avenue Public Meetings Constitution Hall /Brooklyn Center Community Center January 31, February 1 and February 5, 1990 An informational report and notice of public meetings was sent to all property owners and residents on and within one block of 69th Avenue from Dupont Avenue to the west City limits. A copy of that report and notice is attached to this report. As there are over 800 property owners and residents in this area, three informational meetings were scheduled. The first and third meetings were to ' focus on the western segments of 69th - from Shingle Creek Parkway to the west City limits - while the second focused on the eastern segment. The report of public meetings below first relates the introductory remarks, which were similar at all three meetings. The report then details the public question and answer sessions at each of the three meetings. INTRODUCTION (at each meeting City Manager Gerald G. Splinter opened these public meetings by noting that a ' • few years ago the City Council authorized a study of 69th Avenue, requesting that traffic and other conditions be evaluated and that alternative solutions be proposed. The City is now conducting three meetings for neighborhood residents and property owners to review that study and the recommendations. He noted that these would be informal meetings, and that when the Council wanted to actually consider a construction project, more formal hearings would ' be held. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp described the three segments into which 69th has been broken, and briefly described the report's findings and ' recommendations on all. He noted that there are three reports describing various parts of the project: the detailed study, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and a 6(f) report; and that all three are available for review at ' City Hall and at the Brookdale Library. Knapp described the possible timeline, and noted that the earliest possible date any construction could begin is 1992. Segment 2 is where the most urgent problems lie; however, the bridge over Shingle Creek in Segment 3 is also a high priority. ' Glen Van Wormer, Short Elliot Hendrickson, reviewed the traffic analysis in more detail. He said his study considered three options: do nothing, divert 1 the traffic elsewhere, or reduce the congestion. He described the recommendations in detail. City Manager Splinter explained that it is important to have public input to the process, and would at this time open the meeting to questions and comments 1 from the audience. A break would be held during which people could ask individual questions. The public portion would reconvene for additional questions. The presenters would be available after the meetings for additional individual questions. January 31. Focus: Segments 1 and 2. Attendance: about 150. ' PUBLIC QUESTIONS [Note: these are not verbatim minutes. Answering speaker is CGS unless otherwise noted.] Q: Would you consider entirely removing the curves from Oliver to Palmer Lake Drive? ' A: (GGS) We're restricted in what we can do in Palmer Lake Park. Sometimes curves help to slow down traffic. [Showed new alignment on map] We had in mind when looking at this to stay out of the park and the wetlands as ' much as possible. Q: Did this study look into the effect on the value of adjoining ' properties? A: (GVW) No. ' • Q: I would suggest you do that. A (GGS) Generally, the closer your home is to a busy street, the more ' detrimental to its value. - Q: Will you be displacing homes on segment 1? A: No, but depending on final alignment of Brooklyn Boulevard /69th, there might be some question on the northwest corner of that intersection. ' Q: Is there any compensation if the City acquires more right of way, or for degradation of property values? A: The City would have to pay for acquisition of property. Also, if a portion of a property is taken, the entire property must be appraised on a before and after basis. Then, if appraisals before and after show a decrease in value, the City must pay damages. ' To clarify he conc of right of way road width is about 33' Y P g Y> > and the right of way is 66'. That means that the City's right of way extends about 15' on either side beyond the actual road - the actual width varies along the road. Acquisition of property is only required if construction of the project extends outside of the right -of -way ' limits. • 2 Q: When was the public notified of this study? A: A report was made in the paper about 4 years ago, (and several articles have been in the paper covering various discussions of the project at Council meetings). Q: Will there be landscaping? A: There would be tree planting, depending on the width available. We haven't done a lot of detail yet. Plantings do improve appearance and cut down on noise. Q: Would the road be concrete? II ' ' A: SK Blacktop, A: ( SK) p, with concrete curbing. ' Q: What would be the effect on property taxes? A: Neutral. ' Q: I remember plans to move traffic to Brooklyn Park, extending the road through Palmer Lake. Why move this traffic to us? Why not improve 610, Humboldt, 252? The traffic increase has to be due to the growth up north - why make this improvement for Brooklyn Park traffic? [Applause] A: The traffic forecasts have tried to take other improvements into ' account. There will be improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard in the next 10 -15 years. 69th is now about as discouraging a roadway as possible - yet 13,000 cars per day are using 69th Avenue. These improvements would at least get the traffic through there, reduce the backups, and idling. ' Environmental factors eliminated the option of running Xerxes through Palmer Lake. (GVW) Some of the traffic through here is being generated in the area - we looked at this commercial area, at the office park [indicates on map], and saw a lot of traffic being generated there. Q: Has the Council considered stopping traffic on 69th, to try to discourage the short - cutters? ' A: (GVW) A lot of the traffic is local; I think the congestion problems at Shingle Creek Parkway and I694 will discourage Brookdale Shopping Center traffic. Once we get Brooklyn Boulevard and 1694 taken care of, we will ' get rid of some of the short - cutters. Q: We're concerned about the effect on left turns into our driveways at Pilgrim Cleaners. A: (GGS) I encourage the owner to call the Engineering office and talk one on one. We will need to work closely with you. The current proposal eliminates left turns. 3 M � Q: I see that the plan will have the road right up close to the businesses at Brooklyn Boulevard. A: Yes, we will be taking some right of way, at Tires Plus, Saba Flowers and Orbit T.V. We will be adding a right turn lane there. Q: How will we get onto 69th from France? A: It could either remain a 4 -way Stop or we could look at a traffic ' signal, depending upon traffic conditions after the construction. Q: Did you say earlier that you would widen France? A: No, I was referring to the widening effect of having paved shoulders on 69th at France. People tend to use those as turning lanes, in effect widening the road. Q: Concerning property values, at a hearing earlier, when the car dealership was establishing a parking lot, it was noted that the intersection was the 2nd most polluted in the Metro area. Especially with added traffic, how will this affect our value? A: (CGS) After that hearing no one was able to document that this was ' indeed the 2nd most polluted - Q: I called the state to get the technical information. A: Well, by moving the traffic through more quickly, the idling time will be reduced, reducing the pollution. Also, landscaping will help. ' Q: What will the speed limit be? I urge you to -keep it as low as possible. A: Now it is 30 -35 mph, depending on where you are. We've checked with the Police Department; some people are now going 45 mph. Q: How will pedestrians get from the south side to the north side of 69th? ' A: We will have painted crosswalks, and sidewalks on both sides, with at least one side wider for bikes. ' Q: What happens to the existing 69th by the cemetery? A: [Showed overhead and explained proposal] Q: Will the road be widened in Segment 1, and what happens when the road gets to Brooklyn Park? ' A: The existing roadway is about 36'; new will be 40 -42'. It will be tapered to meet the existing roadway in Brooklyn Park. Q: Why did you choose the north side of 69th? 4 A: [Reviewed again the 3 alternatives] Q: If houses are taken, how are the payments figured? r A: (GGS) There is a detailed set of procedures which will ensure fairness to the property owners. (SK) The first step is negotiation with the property owner; the City is required to pay up to $500 if the owner wants to hire his own appraiser. [Explains process] Q: Would you have any signals at Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th? ' A: We don't think so now. Should the traffic start building up we would look at it. Q: Would you have just crosswalks? A: Yes, painted, plus signs. Q: Why are you eliminating one of the ways out of our neighborhood? It is hard enough to get out now. Getting out on 69th from Beard is a problem. A: The design we're considering would flatten out the curve, and increase the sight distance making it less hazardous. Two entrance /exits are more than adequate. Q: Please work to keep the speed limit as slow as possible. ' Q: Why do we have to wait so long for improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard? I've lived on 69th Avenue for 22 years. ' A: Brooklyn Boulevard is a County highway. We are working together with the County on this. We are also encouraging an interchange on 694 at Zane in Brooklyn Park. Q: Have you looked into Stop signs at 69th and Beard? It is the speed and amount of traffic which makes this hazardous, rather than curves. r A: Stop signs and signals don't work very well at controlling the speed of the traffic. If anything, people speed up as they speed away from the Stop sign or signal. Improving sight distances will help. Q: Would you confirm that the properties that would have to be taken under the 3 lane alternative would be by the cemetery and at Brooklyn ' Boulevard? A: Yes, that's correct. The maps on the wall show the details. 5 t BREAK. RESIDENTS WERE ABLE TO ASK INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS OF SPLINTER, KNAPP, AND VAN WORMER. LaVon Re 6 4 gen, 8 2 Scott, asked during this time that her concern be recorded in the meeting notes: She stated that she is concerned that this proposed reconstruction may reduce the value of her home by bringing the roadway closer to her house, that her property taxes would remain the same, that she would receive no compensation for this lost value, and that she would have to pay a special assessment for roadway and curb and gutter improvements. PUBLIC MEETING RECONVENED. Q: If the City has to get a variance for Alterative C, and couldn't get it, what would the dollar impact be? A: It's all or none. The chances are 50/50 we could get a variance. (SK) [Explained process] You can never be sure about the variance ' process. It's very difficult to predict. Q: I'm part of the cut - through traffic. You may be underestimating this. On Fridays at rush hour, when 694 begins to back up, you can see people begin to peel off and exit on Shingle Creek Parkway. • A: Our traffic counts tried to factor this out. We've assumed that other improvements will be done to reduce this. We are expecting a third lane to be added to 694 in '94. ' I'd like to note that City Council member Todd Paulson is present and Representative Carruthers was here earlier in the meeting. Q: A few years ago we had a speed study done - it showed speeds averaging more than five mph above the speed limit. ' A: People do drive above the speed limit, knowing that some leeway is given by the courts. The state will not allow us to post a speed limit less than 30 mph. Q: Can we have 30 mph all the way through? A: We don't know if we can on all parts, but we'll look into it. Q: If you are widening the roadway, getting the power lines underground would help. A: We do analyze this when we are designing a project. We are doing this on the West River Road project. It depends on a lot of things, but we will be working together with NSP to look into it. Cost is a factor. • 6 Q: If you make this four lanes, we will get more traffic. I live on Beard, and get noise from 694. Will you take into account noise? A: Yes, noise studies are included. We will be doing some planting, which will help to buffer the noise. P A Q: Have you ever considered a frontage road along 694? A: No, but that would probably be much more expensive because we would need to take more houses to get the necessary right of way. Q: Have you estimated the impact on the values of properties between 694 and 69th? ' A: (CGS) I think it would probably be neutral. Q: I've heard several people on the south side say they would like to sell their properties. I live on the north side and would like to stay in my 110 year old farmhouse. How should we make our views known? Should we write letters? A: (GGS) I would suggest you wait until the Council schedules a formal hearing to consider the project. Then oral or written individual communication would be appropriate. A public hearing is the most appropriate forum for expressing your views. ' Q: Will there be a study done on access from the north and south, on getting on to 69th? A: (GGS) We'll be sure to detail it at later hearings. Q: I suppose that Segment 1, because of the need to work together with the County, might never get done? ' A: (SK) I think never is too strong a word. It could be a long time. ' (GGS) Sy, could we get a better idea from the County of a possible timeline for the later hearing? Q: It seems that almost everyone here is against these improvements. We ' will be circulating a petition against it. A: (GGS) That's a legitimate way of expressing yourself. However, individual communication would be better. We have had problems with the same people signing petitions on both sides of an issue. Q: Would you consider putting up traffic lights to see what happens? A: Signals have their pros and cons. Again, signals and signs don't usually slow traffic. We would have to use MNDOT criteria for signals and signs. 7 i 1 Q: I don't agree with the gentleman that everyone here is against this. . There comes a time when progress has to be made. We live on 69th and ' have problems backing out. We think you should take the properties on both sides and get rid of the property devaluation problem. ' THE PUBLIC MEETING WAS ADJOURNED, FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. ' February 1. Focus: Segment 3. Attendance: about 25 [INTRODUCTORY AND EXPLANATORY REMARKS ESSENTIALLY SAME AS JANUARY 31 MEETING. ' NEW MATERIAL IS PRESENTED BELOW.] Director of Public Works Sy Knapp asked for a show of hands of those present who were from the areas of segments 1 and 2. There were none. He said the meeting would then concentrate on segment 3. He briefly described the report's findings and noted that improvements to segment 3 would probably not occur until 1992 -95. However, residents were being alerted now, so that they ' have an idea what might be ahead, and when it might take place. PUBLIC QUESTIONS [Note: these are not verbatim minutes. Answering speaker is GGS unless otherwise noted.] i Q: What will be the traffic control after the improvements at Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th? A: (SK) Right now we think we can have just a Stop sign on 69th. In the future we might consider a signal. (GGS) It would also depend on how easily traffic can get onto and off of 69th. At France we put in a four way Stop because the traffic on France couldn't get onto 69th. (SK) [Explained "warrant" process] (GGS) Pedestrian access is also a factor we take into account. Q: Do you have any plans at 69th and Humboldt to lower the roadway and improve drainage? A: (GGS) Yes, this is definitely a problem. This is also a problem to the west toward Oliver. Anything we do would include storm sewer improvements. (SK) There's no question that Humboldt needs to be lowered. ' (GGS) This used to be a county road. Whenever the road would break up, the county would overlay another layer; soon the road is the highest Sg t 1 1 point around. The recent overlay by the county will last about 3 -5 . years. 1 Q: When I moved onto 69th, I wanted to put in a culvert, and the County wouldn't let me. My neighbors who moved in later were able to. 1 A: The county has rules that it is fairly inflexible about. When the City took over the road we allowed culverts. Q: You said the proposed road section would be like 70th to Dupont. I have a big family, and we would have problems parking by my house. A: (GGS) It may be possible to arrange for parallel parking, which you 1 would have to pay for by special assessment. Look at Lyndale from 55th -57th as an example. 1 (SK) We would consider parking when looking at designing that section. With the existing right of way, a minimum roadway of 28', plus a sidewalk and trail, we would have about 11' "left over." If we have a parallel parking area, that would leave us with only a few feet of ' boulevard for snow storage. In that case, we might ask the property owner for an easement to move the sidewalk closer to the house. 1 Q: At the Earle Brown apartments, with drivers turning left into the drive, in the evening with the setting sun in your eyes, it can be dangerous. Now there is at least a shoulder to get around the left turning traffic. Without a shoulder, traffic would stack up. A: We might be able to work in a protected left turn lane there. 1 Q: At 69th and Newton, people just roll through stop sign. A: That sometimes happens when people get used to a stop sign. That problem is not exclusive to Newton Avenue traffic. Stop seems to mean slow down. Q: What would be the cost to the property owner, per foot? A: (SK) The City Council several years ago established a policy for major street improvements throughout all residential areas. Each year it 1 adopts a standard assessment per property, which is intended to capture about 1/3 the total cost of reconstructing an "average" residential street. The 1990 rate is $1,410 per parcel; the rate increases with inflation. It is possible to pay this in installments over 20 years. Also, if you live on a corner lot, you have the option of choosing which street improvement you wish to be assessed for. You may choose to wait for the other street to be improved, but that may be a gamble, because the Council may in the future wish to change the rate policy, such as capturing more than 1/3 the cost. 1 Q: Do you mean 1/3 of the cost of this project would be paid by the homeowners? • 9 1 1 A: Not 1/3 of this project, but 1/3 of an average residential project. Q: Who pays the rest? ' A: Since this is a municipal state aid street, it would be funded from our municipal state aid funds. This comes from your gas tax and vehicle ' registration charges. I would guess that special assessments would cover less than five percent of the cost of this project. ' Q: There are a lot of short - cutters on 69th. A: (GGS) There were a lot during the past 3 years, due to people avoiding the 252 and 694 construction. We hope that since that is done that the number of short - cutters will decrease. (SK) Traffic, especially those wanting to exit on Brooklyn Boulevard and go west on 69th, now find it easier to exit at Shingle Creek Parkway; we know this is happening. We are working with Hennepin County and MNDOT for improvements to the Brooklyn Boulevard exit and to Brooklyn Boulevard to decrease this. There should be major improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard in the 1990 Completion of those improvements will reduce this problem. (GGS) To reduce congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard we would like to have MNDOT construct at least a half - diamond interchange at Zane. Also, a third lane is scheduled to be added to 694 in about 1994. All of these ' improvements will help reduce the number of cars who use 69th Avenue to bypass existing problems. (GVW) By using turning movements and traffic counts, we can reconstruct traffic flow. We also looked at the amount of traffic that "should" be there. We know that a lot of the 69th traffic is local. (GGS) MNDOT a few years ago did origin /destination studies of the traffic on the freeway river bridge. It found that 30 to 40 percent of the traffic started and /or stopped within four to five miles of the river. Q: Why do anything at all to our segment? A: (GGS) Anytime we do a project, we've found that it's better to look at the whole thing so that we know all the impacts and everything fits together. We know there are some drainage and other problems that will ' need to be done sometime. Staff will definitely recommend a new bridge over Shingle Creek in the near future. ' (SK) Another reason is that we are required to do detailed environmental studies. We are required to cover in those studies as much of the area as possible. Also, we study the whole corridor now so that if we decide to do something in the future, we don't then have to do another ' environmental study. 10 (SK) We should give credit to previous City Councils, who when developing the commercial /industrial park did not allow driveways onto ' 69th. If we did, we'd be in a whole different ball game. (SK) People may have wondered why the City put in the reverse curve east of Dupont, and built an intersection with 252 at 70th instead of ' 69th. We did this to try to discourage through traffic from 252 onto 69th, and to provide better access to students attending Evergreen School. (GGS) We will look at the overhead utility lines. We will work with the utilities so that if they have projects, they do them at the same time as any projects we do. ' Q: What would be the assessments to the south side properties? A: We can't assess properties if they don't have access to the road. Q: Will there be additional landscaping to isolate the south side ' properties from view? A: We will be looking at this. We will be working with a landscape architect, and will take this into account. Q: Has a new location been chosen for the bridge? Q: Can you flatten out the curve east of the bridge? I'm the first house east of the bridge, and I peel cars off my trees very often. A: (GGS) We will look at alternatives, but we're constrained in what we can do by the park; we can't go into the park. Also, if you straighten out the curves, you may increase speed; curves sometimes help to keep speeds down. Q: Will you continue to control Humboldt and 69th with a Stop? A. (SK) For now. We will probably consider signals later. Q: Would you consider stops on Humboldt at 70th and 71st? A: (GGS) Only some intersections benefit from Stops. We will look closely ' at our alternatives. PUBLIC PORTION OF MEETING ADJOURNED. ' February 5. Focus: Segments 1 and 2. Attendance: about 60 11 [INTRODUCTORY AND EXPLANATORY REMARKS ESSENTIALLY SAME AS JANUARY 31 MEETING. NEW MATERIAL IS PRESENTED BELOW.] Director of Public Works Sy Knapp asked for a show of hands of those present who were from the area of segment 3. There were a few. He said the meeting ' would then cover all segments. PUBLIC QUESTIONS [Note: these are not verbatim minutes. Answering speaker is GGS unless otherwise noted.] ' Q: Would the improvements to segment 2 attract additional truck traffic? A: (GVW) Probably not. The truck traffic from the commercial /industrial ' area is already there. Most trucks are going to destinations where they're better off using the freeway. Q: Where would the funding for these improvements come from? A: (SK) Segment 2 is a municipal state aid street. We would expect that almost all the funding would come from the MSA fund. There would be ' some cost to the abutting property owners. [Explained city special assessment policy.] The only properties that would be assessed would be properties fronting on 69th. In 1990 the standard rate is $1,410 over • 20 years. Special assessments would cover less than five percent of the project's cost. (SK) This is by buildable lot, so if you have a large lot which could legally be subdivided, it would be more. - Q: I'm really tired of this City losing houses to roadways. Why are you ' considering taking more? A: (GGS) We will run into a problem by the cemetery and Brooklyn Boulevard 1 no matter which alternative is chosen. We just can't improve those areas without taking some houses. On the rest of the street, at the other meetings and in person some people have told us they want to stay no matter what, and some want to go. Some people want to stay, but ' don't want the road closer to their houses. On West River Road, people didn't want the roadway being closer to their yards and houses. These are all concepts for discussion and we obviously want to avoid taking ' property but at times we have to make the road work and buffer it from neighboring properties. (SK) Both alternates A and B take the same number of houses -24. ' Alternate C would take 10. The City Assessor did some preliminary estimates of the cost of right of way acquisition, and the right -of -way costs for A and B are almost identical. Q: Will you be rezoning any property from residential to commercial? 12 A: (GGS) We really haven't looked at it. There may be some areas, possibly at June Avenue. If the Council wants to pursue a project, we would ' probably talk to some of the owners and see if there's any interest in redeveloping the area. Q: So, it would probably stay the same? ' A: This is preliminary. We don't now have a proposal. If the Council gets more serious, we will get more serious about reviewing zoning. ' Q: Why wasn't this advertised in the City newsletter or in the parks newsletter, just in a paper we have to pay for? ' A: As for the newsletter, we weren't really sure of the timing of the meetings. We instead chose to send out 800 letters to residents. We did purchase an ad in the Post, and they wrote a news story regarding ' it. Q: If there is a formal hearing, will there be better notice? A: (GGS) We find our best response is by directly notifying owners by mail. Under state law, we are only required to notify abutting property owners of a hearing by mail. We will also notify owners about a block in each ' direction from 69th. Q. The road at Beard would still have a bend. Is there any chance of ' straightening that out more? A: (GGS) This is a preliminary design. We will make it as safe as possible. We are constrained by the cemetery and wetlands. We will ' work on it. Q: Where will you have any signals and signs to stop traffic? ' A: (GVW) This is a preliminary design. It would depend on when it is built, and which alternative is chosen. The potential is there for a ' signal at Shingle Creek Parkway. Q: You're opening this up for speeding traffic. I realize that stops increase pollution, but without them you will get a lot of speeders. 1 A: (GGS) We will look at speeds. We will landscape, curve the road a little. That will make it less attractive to speeders. Stops slow down ' traffic temporarily. We obviously have more work to do on the traffic control part of this improvement. ' Q: I'm between a rock and a hard place - either you take my house or my neighbor's. I don't like it one bit. Q: Have you considered a signal at Beard? It's hard to get on. 13 ' k ' A: (GVW) A four lane road tends to "platoon" traffic, creating more gaps in traffic. You have a better opportunity to get on. If after improvement ' you are having trouble, then chances are everyone else is also having problems. Then we would consider a signal somewhere to meter the traffic. ' Q: Would you increase the speed limit? A: (CGS) Cities are limited in what we can do with speed limits. ' (SK) There is one person in the state which sets speed limits - the Commissioner of Transportation. MNDOT does speed surveys, accident surveys, etc., and from that information, state law says the Commissioner shall decide what is a safe speed for that road. The City Council can either go ahead with what the Commissioner says, or choose to set the limit at 30 mph. The options here realistically are 30 or 35 ' mph. On City streets the City Council does have the authority to drop a speed it doesn't agree with to 30 mph. ' BREAK FOR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. Q: How wide is the proposed landscape area, and who would maintain it? ' A: (CGS) The City would maintain it if not a part of a front yard. (SK) [Showed cross - section] The current right of way is 66'. Most ' houses have about a 25' setback, meaning most houses are about 60 -75' from the road's centerline. If we bought a house, no matter which side of the street, we would add another 130' of right of way. We could then look at distributing some of that right of way on both sides. With the proper landscaping, we think this could look more like St. Anthony Parkway than Shingle Creek Parkway. We can also provide plantings in the median, do things there. I (GGS) We can do things like putting in small bends in the road, such as we're doing on West River Road, so people can't see a straight shot down the road. That may slow people down. ' Q: It appears that the onl y y access to the cemetery will be from eastbound and exiting will also only be eastbound. A: (GGS) It appears so. We really haven't planned this much. ' (GVW) This will be a tough problem to solve. The cemetery road might have to be moved - we can't do that, but they could. (SK) Such as at City Hall, we could think about a drive -over median for use by funeral procession only. There is now a sign at the cemetery which says Right Turn Only. This is because of the sight distance problem. [Members of the audience noted that that sign is no longer up.] 14 Q: There is another gate, another entrance to the cemetery. A: (GGS) If there are any alternates, we will consider them. Q: Is there a chance this will take a long time to start, like West River Road? We don't want to be left in limbo for a long time. ' A: We think we have enough information for the City Council to choose an alternate. We should know by the end of summer which alternate is ' preferred. We won't necessarily run out and start construction, but we will at least know which houses might be necessary so you can plan accordingly. We will seek authorization to buy from willing sellers as soon as possible. THE PUBLIC MEETING WAS ADJOURNED, FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. Respectfully submitted, ' Diane Spector Public Works Coordinator ' Attachments: - Notice of meeting as sent to property owners including the summary report - Copy of article in Brooklyn Center Post (before) ' - Copy of ad in Brooklyn Center Post - Copy of article in Brooklyn Center Post (covering meeting) - 2/7/90 edition 15 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTEF council Meeting Date 2/26/90 Agenda Item Number - 7d_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON DEPT. APPROVAL. aAP� CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached I ******************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes During the past 3 ears extensive traffic studies environmental studies g P Y , and preliminary plans and cost estimates have been completed regarding 69th Avenue North between the west City limits and Dupont Avenue. Recently, City staff conducted a series of 3 public informational meetings to inform the public of the City's preliminary plans so that the public and the City staff could exchange dialogue regarding this project, thus attempting to ensure that formal discussions could be held on the basis of an improved base of knowledge and communication. Approximately 800 individual notices for those meetings were sent to property owners and occupants living within one block of 69th Avenue. Also, a notice of the meetings was published in the Brooklyn Center Post. Approximately 235 persons (total) attended these three ' meetings. (See attached summary.) City staff believes that those meetings were generally positive, and that it is now appropriate to initiate formal consideration of the first phase of 69th Avenue improvements - between Noble ' Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for March 26, 1990 for this purpose, and that this be a dual - purpose hearing, i.e.: o a general hearing covering the entire 69th Avenue project between the g g P J west City limits and Dupont Avenue; and o a ublic improvement" hearing n accordance with Minnesota Statutes P P g , Chapter 429, relating to the proposed special assessments for the currently- proposed project. The attached resolution, if adopted, would approve the process, setting the • hearings for March 26, in Constitution Hall. If this resolution is adopted, staff will send out two forms of notice, i.e.: o a notice of the general hearing to the same 800 property owners and residents who were notified of the informational meetings; and o a formal notice of the improvement hearing to all property owners who are proposed to be specially assessed. ' City Council Action Required Review and discussion........., and adoption of the resolution. • , Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 90 -41 RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by the Department of Public Works with reference to the following proposed improvement: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -10 RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, this improvement is the first phase of a larger, long range improvement program for 69th Avenue North from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North; WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited properties for a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to'Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and that the benefited properties are those properties which abut the ' existing right -of -way of 69th Avenue, and /or the expanded future right -of -way as developed by the proposed improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. the report of the Department of Public Works is hereby received and accepted. 2. the Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $5,574,000. 3. a public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 26th day of March, 1990 in Constitution Hall in the Brooklyn Center Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8 :00 P.M. local time and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 4. concurrently with the improvement hearing, the Council will also conduct a hearing relating to the long range program for improvements to 69th Avenue from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North. RESOLUTION N0, 90 -41 February 26, 1990 Date Ma r ATTEST: -L` Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen, and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. r i t C • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B YROOOK'LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ' TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE ' 911 ' ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT 69TH AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 ' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMPLETE STREET RECONSTRUCTION INCLUDING RIGHT -OF- WAY ACQUISITION, REMOVAL ITEMS, GRADING, DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAILS AND LANDSCAPING II. PROJECT LOCATION 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE ' CREEK PARKWAY III. DISCUSSION This report focuses on the section of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, a distance of approximately 1.2 miles. This is the proposed first phase of Improvement Project 1987 -08 which included 69th Avenue North between the west City limits and Dupont Avenue, a total distance of 2.8 ' • miles. Extensive studies have been conducted covering the larger project, and the following reports are referenced for consideration in conjunction with this feasibility report: o "69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE" as prepared by Short - Elliott - Hendrickson Inc. and dated April ' 4, 1989 o "ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET - IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM THE WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT ' AVENUE NO." as prepared by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. and dated October 19, 1989 ' o An amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's Project Agreement Number LW27- 01097.4 with the State of Minnesota /Department of Trade and Economic Development. This amendment, which has been fully approved and executed ' by all responsible agencies, approves the conversion to 3.44 acres of land within Palmer Lake Park to non - recreation use, subject to the City's acquisition of 7.5 acre parcel of ' replacement land adjacent to Kylawn Park. The City has now completed acquisition of this replacement land. It is recommended that this first phase improvement be limited to the ' section between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway for the following reasons: t S • the segment of 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway carries the g reatest traffic counts • g Y g (13,000 vehicles per day in 1987, projected to 17,200 vehicles per day in 2007). , • this is the section which experiences the greatest traffic congestion and air pollution problems, and the highest ' accident rates. • if the east leg of the Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Avenue ' intersection is improved, it will be necessary to concurrently improve the west leg of that intersection - -- to assure the safe and efficient operation of that ' intersection. Because geometric design standards may require the transition from the existing roadway to the proposed intersection design to be accomplished over a 500 foot to 1000 foot distance, the westerly end of the , currently proposed project is recommended to be at Noble Avenue. Final design limits and features will depend on Hennepin County's Department of Transportation design ' requirements. It is also noted that Hennepin County Department of ' Transportation is currently reviewing traffic needs on Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) and may wish to improve the total intersection (all four legs) under a concurrent construction contract. • , o the estimated cost for improving this section approaches the City's ability to fund these improvements utilizing Municipal State Aid Street Funds, special assessments, and County State Aid funding (via proposed agreement with Hennepin County). As detailed in the above - referenced reports, three alternate alignments have been proposed for consideration, i.e.: Alternate "A" - a 5 -lane divided roadway with a curvilinear alignment , between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive which meanders both north and south from the existing alignment. Alternate B a 5-lane divided roadway ith a straight alignment between Y g g Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer La 'Ke Drive, with the proposed roadway lying within and norz.h of the existing , right -of -way. Alternate "C" - a 3 -lane undivided roadway (one lane in each direction and a , two - way - left -turn centerlane) which lies within and partly north of the existing right of way between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive. • -2- ' Note All alternates include alignment "Alternate E" for the segment between • West Palmer Lake Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway (see Drawing No. 8 of ' the April 4, 1989 report by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc.). Public informational meetings regarding the proposed improvements were ' conducted by City staff members and a representative from Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. on January 31, February 1, and February 5, 1990. Notices of those meetings and a summary report of the proposed improvements were sent to approximately 800 property owners and residents within one block of 69th ' Avenue in advance of these meetings. A notice of the meeting was also published in the City's official newspaper. Total attendance at the three meetings was estimated at 235. IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS• It is anticipated that all costs except for enhancements to the City's water distribution and sanitary sewer systems will be eligible for reimbursement from the City's regular Municipal ' State Aid Street Fund Account. However, it is recommended that special assessments be levied against the benefited commercial properties which abut 69th Avenue and have their primary access to 69th Avenue and to ' benefited residential properties which abut the completed project. (The answer to the question of which properties will abut the completed properties depends on which of the three alternate plans is selected.) ' The following estimated assessment rates assume that construction will occur in 1992 and reflect the City's established policies for special assessments relating to this type of improvement as established in Resolution No. 89 -234: ' • Land Use 1990 (estimated 1992) Assessment Rate ' R -1 zoned, used as one - family site $1,410 x$1,550) per lot that cannot be subdivided R -2 zoned, or used as a two - family $18.74 ($21.00) per front foot ' site that cannot be subdivided with a minimum of $1,410 ($1,550) per lot R -3 zoned Assessable frontage x $18.74 ($21.00) Number of residential units All R -4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 properties and all Commercially -zoned and Industrially -zoned properties: ' Zone A (those portions of properties $ 0.45 per square which lie within 200 feet of 69th Avenue) foot ' Zone B (those portions of benefited $ 0.20 per square properties which lie more than 200 feet foot from 69th Avenue) ' Application of these rates would result in the following total assessment • levies shown on the next page: ' -3- Total Assessment Levies Based on Engineer's Estimate Unit Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C Assessable Assessable Est. No. Est. Total Est. No. Est. Total Est. No. Est. Total Land Use Unit Rate Of Units Cost Of Units Cost Of Units Cost R -1 lot $1,550.00 10 to 22* $15,500 to 9 to 29* $13,950 to 18 to 30* $27,900 to $34,100 $44,950 $46,500 R -3 front feet $21.00 700 $14,700 700 $14,700 700 $14,700 All R -4 properties and all commercially and industrially zoned properties: A -Zone square feet $0.45 270,000 $121,500 270,000 $121,500 270,000 $121,500 B -Zone square feet $0.20 450,000 $90,000 450,000 $90,000 450,000 $90,000 TOTALS $241,700 to $240,150 to $254,100 to $260,300 $271,150 $272,700 *NOTE: The estimated number of R -1 properties to be assessed is shown as a range, to reflect the City's policy of allowing corner lots and double- fronted lots to pay special assessments for the current improvement or to elect to pay special assessments only when a street reconstruction improvement is made on the "other" side of that lot. i V. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Following is a summary of estimated costs and revenue . g y sources for the proposed improvements: ' V -A COST SUMMARY: The 4/4/89 report by SEH, Inc. estimated project costs for the three segments identified in that report as follows, based on ' 1990 property values and construction cost index: For either of the five lane alternates (Alternate A or Alternate B). ' Segment Right No. Segment of -way Construction Engineering Total ' 1 Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd $ 0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 2 Brooklyn Blvd ' to Shingle Creek Parkway $2,100,000 $1,800,000 $200,000 $4,100,000 3 Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue S 0 $1.300,000 $150.000 $1.450.000 $2,100,000 $4,500,000 $500,000 $7,100,000 For the three lane alternate (Alternate C): ' • Segment Right No. Segment of -way Construction Engineering Total 1 Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd $ 0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 ' 2 Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Parkway $ 815,000 $1,600,000 $170,000 $2,585,000 3 Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue $ 0 $1.300.000 $150.000 $1,450.000 $ 815,000 $4,300,000 $470,000 $5,585,000 t -4- { The currently - proposed project includes the entire "Segment 2" and approximately one -third of the length (and one -half of the cost) of • Segment No. 1. Estimated costs also need to be adjusted to reflect anticipated increases in property values (i.e. right -of -way costs) and in ' construction and engineering costs, g g o ts, based on an estimated 1992 construction schedule. Accordingly, the costs for the currently - proposed project are now estimated as follows: ' Estimated Costs Estimated Costs I - If Either 5 lane If the 3-lane ' Alternate (A or B) Alternate C Item Is Selected Is Selected Right -of -way $2,400,000 $ 930,000 Construction 2,300,000 2,050,000 , Engineering, Legal & Admin. , ( @20% of construction) 460,000 410,000 Contingency ( @15% of Constr. , Engr., Legal & Admin. 414,000* 369,000* Totals $5,574,000 ** $3,759,000 ** * Note 1: The construction cost estimates are based on very preliminary evaluations ' of several construction features for which no detailed information has been developed. Detailed design level studies are needed to more • , accurately evaluate the costs for the following items: Item Discussion Storm Sewer System Improvements and The cost estimates are development of Storm Drainage based on "normal" costs facilities which meet the current for storm sewer system ' requirements of the Watershed improvements. Full Commission, the DNR and the Corps compliance to all current of Engineers, including ponding, requirements may result in ' compensatory storage and wetland significanat cost increases. requirements. Construction of the new roadway The cost estimates are based , thru the unstable soils encountered on the use of geotextiles in the Palmer Lake area. and a "surcharge" procedure. Detailed soils engineering studies may indicate that these costs have been underestimated, or ' overestimated. Or, they may dictate the need to use a different method for establishing a suitable ' subgrade for the new roadway -5- 1 t � Item Discussion Extraordinary landscaping costs The cost estimates include a fairly generous allowance for landscaping costs. However, extraordinary landscape treatments could significantly increase costs. Accordingly, a 15% contingency is recommended to allow for these "unknowns ". ' * * Note 2: These cost estimates do not include the following items, for the reasons as noted. Items Not Included Discussion Enhancement of the City's Water Main Studies to date have focused and Sanitary Sewer systems on transportation needs. If such enhancements are needed ' in conjunction with this improvement, Public Utility Funds would be used to cover those costs. At this time, we do not anticipate that any major enhancements will be needed. Traffic Control Signal System(s) Detailed (design- level) other than at the Brooklyn studies are needed to Boulevard /69th Ave. intersection determine if traffic control signal system(s) are warranted, based on final design details. However, the cost estimates include installation of conduits to allow future installation of ' traffic signals. Removal of overhead electrical, Development of a meaningful telephone or CATV wires and cost estimate for this work installation of these facilities requires detailed design -level underground studies. Accordingly, if a decision is made to ' "underground" these facilities, the project costs estimates can be amended based on specifics available at that time. ' -6- V -B REVENUE SUMMARY Following is a summary of estimated revenues from various revenue sources foo this project: Service Amount Estimated Special Assessments $ 240,000 Municipal State Aid Street Fund Account 2613 For Alternates A or B 4,584,000 ' For Alternate C 2,769,000 County State Aid Highway Funds from 750,000 ' Hennepin County (for segment west of Brooklyn Boulevard) Brooklyn Center Public Utility Fund All costs for utility ' system enhancements (not included in current estimate) TOTALS ' For Alternates A or B $5,574,000 For Alternate C $3,759,000 VI. FEASIBILITY The improvement is feasible as described above, under the conditions outlined and at the costs estimated. VII. CERTIFICATION ' I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direction and that I am a registered Professional Engineer in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Februa ry 22, 1990 Sy Knapp, irector of Fublic Works Registration No. 6242 -7- ' Jim m -- •. AJOR 11 ' zoo' A I AVE. N. = o KYL / o cn � UNE ..� JUNE O� zoo ' Rt IND ANA 1 Np� •4Nq � HALIFAX AVE II oo� GRIMES z au AVE . 4 GRIMES P ..,. I FRANC F AVE N. � c . CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ' OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE ' 911 ' DATE: March 9, 1990 TO: Property Owners and Residents in 69th Avenue North Corridor ' from West City Limits to Dupont Avenue FROM: G.G. Splinter ' City Manager SUBJ: Public Hearing to Discuss Improvements of 69th Avenue North On January 24, 1990 I sent to you a copy of a summary report regarding proposed future improvements to 69th Avenue North along with an invitation to attend a series of three informational meetings to discuss the proposed improvements. Those meetings were held on January 31, February 1, and February 5, and were attended by approximately 235 people. We wish to thank ' • you for attending and participating in those meetings. The concerns, questions, and comments which you expressed will help the City of Brooklyn Center to better understand and meet your needs if the improvements proceed. �csYxx�Yxs' ex�Y�Y�Yuxxxuxxx�cx�Y�c�x�e�exxxxxx�Yx�cxxxx This notice is now being sent to inform you that the Brooklyn Center City ' Council will conduct a formal hearing regarding the proposed concept for improvements to 69th Avenue from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue, as described in the "summary report" which you received with my January 24 letter ' - and as discussed at the informational meetings. Those total improvements are proposed to be made in phases - over an extended period of time. That hearing will be held as follows: ' Date and Time: Monday, March 26, 1990, 8:00 p.m. Location: In Constitutional Hall, Brooklyn Center Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway An official public hearing, regarding the proposed first phase of these improvements, i.e.- between Noble Avenue North on the west and Shingle Creek Parkway on the east, will be held concurrently with the hearing on the larger project. All property owners who have property which abuts that portion of 69th Avenue North are receiving separate notices of the hearing in addition to ' this notice. 1%6 ALL-4MfR1U QIY 1 1 1 ' Page Two March 9, 1990 ' You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetin g on March 26 and to participate in the discussion of the proposed improvements, whether you are ' affected by and /or concerned about the proposed first phase improvement concept. 1 Should you need additional information or if you have a question which could be answered in advance of the meeting, please contact the City Engineering Department at 569 -3340. 4 Sp , Ci ty Manager i . CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 March 9, 1990 Dear Property Owner: ' At 8 :00 P.M. on Monday, March 26, 1990, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed improvement of 69th Avenue North from Noble Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. Enclosed are copies of the following items: • the official "Notice of Public Hearing" ' • the resolution adopted by the City Council on February 26, 1990 • the Engineer's Feasibility Report regarding this project ' Please note that all three alignment alternates, "A ", "B ", and "C," will be considered and discussed at the hearing. Following the hearing, the City. Council will decide (1) whether or not to proceed with the improvement, and (2) ' if the decision is made to proceed, which alignment alternate will be selected. The hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement, if you desire to do so. This hearing will also consider a long range concept for improvements to 69th Avenue from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North. We wish to emphasize that no decision has been made on whether or not to proceed with this project. The City Council will consider ' your comments and input before making this decision. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 569 -3340, if you ' need additional information or have a question which could be resolved in advance of the meeting. Yours very y truly, Sy Z ' Director of Public Works Enclosures ' SK:jg "" roae ut uue�u an I CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 :BR OOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE ' 911 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in ' Constitution Hall of the Brooklyn Center Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8:00 p.m., March 26, 1990 for a public hearing on the following improvement: ' Description: Street reconstruction, including storm sewer improvements regrading, subgrade preparation, installation of concrete ' curb and gutter, bituminous paving, construction of sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. Location: 69th Avenue North from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek ' Parkway. Estimated Cost: $5,574,000.00 ' The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed includes all properties abutting 69th Avenue from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek ' Parkway. - This hearing will also consider the long range concept for improvements to 69th Avenue from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the currently proposed ' improvements and to the long range concept will be heard at this meeting. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make ' arrangements. Senior citizens and persons totally or permanently disabled may be eligible to ' defer some or all of this proposed special assessment. Please contact the Engineering office at 569 -3340 for more information. D. K. Weeks City Clerk Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on March 14 and 21, 1990 '�' 14b641AMERIG QIY =� �7 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE- FIRE ' 911 ' TO: Residential Property Owners on 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway ' FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager RE: Property Owner Survey ' DATE: March 9, 1990 ' Dear Property Owner: P Y ' As described in the enclosed information, three alternate plans for improving 69th Avenue North from Noble Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway have been developed. Implementation of any of the three alternates would require the City to acquire ' • additional rights -of -way in the area near Brooklyn Boulevard and in the area north of the Mound Cemetery. Between these areas, the answer to the question of which properties the City would need to acquire depends on which alternate plan is selected. Enclosed are copies of maps which, based on preliminary design information, show the properties which the City would need to acquire under each of the three alternates. ' At the informational meetings several people suggested that property owners be given an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed improvements, and the selection of alternates, in writing. The enclosed survey is an attempt to give each owner abutting the proposed first phase project an opportunity to ' do so. While we also wish to encourage you to express your views at the public hearing, and in any other way you wish, we ask that you complete the enclosed survey and return it to us, using the enclosed postage paid envelope, by ' Monday, March 19, 1990. A summary of all replies received will be presented at the public hearing on March 26th, for consideration by the City Council. Thank *Splinter, o cooperation. ' Geral D City Manager �� rou ui -uunu an a 1 i ' PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY RE: 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ' Based on information which I /we have received regarding the proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North, please be advised that I /we: Part l: (Support or Opposition to Proposed Project, In General) ' [ ] Generally support the proposed improvement project, regardless of which alternate may be selected. Generally y the proposed improvement project provided the following Alternate is selected (circle one) i A - 5 lanes southern alignment B - 5 lanes northern alignment ' C - 3 lanes ' ( ] Generally oppose the proposed improvement project, regardless of which alternate is selected. ' Part 2: (Preference for Alternate) Whether I /we support or oppose the proposed improvement, if the City ' Council decides to proceed with the improvement of 69th Avenue, I /we prefer the selection of the following alternate: ' [ ] Alternate A - 5 lanes southern alignment [ ] Alternate B - 5 lanes northern alignment ' [ ] Alternate C - 3 lanes i • 1 1 Part 3: Identification of Project Priorities . Whether I /we support or oppose the proposed improvement, if the City Council decides to proceed with the improvement of 69th Avenue, I /we request that special attention be given to the following items, based on the priorities I /we have identified: Item Priorities (circle one) 1 (low) . . . . . . . . 5 (high) ' vehicular safety 1 2 3 4 5 pedestrian /bicycle safety 1 2 3 4 5 ' reduce traffic congestion 1 2 3 4 5 reduce noise /air pollution 1 2 3 4 5 remove overhead wires 1 2 3 4 5 improved street lighting 1 2 3 4 5 landscaping of boulevards and center islands 1 2 3 4 5 other ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 Part 4: Comments Y I /we own the property located at (address) My /our name: Signed: • i ALTER A LANE'S 8n0hKLYN N • ( E 3 , NTE Z u w � 4 1� 1ST ADD. ' w • w «+ • • r o r• ' X 0 0 e; %Tht( DER MO(m 3 T rr 99 • 4lb . i r. • CEMETEnv r z � w Q' 70bo t v tt, ALTERNATE 'A tS LEGEND PURCHASE POSSIBLE PURCHASE ALTERNATE B ` LANE'S BROOKLYN pr + J r K ES F � 4 ` 2 � .. w la � NTER i . i w ° r• w 4 r r HAf 1N � iy c i r� NOgrhT O C � q ' AUD. 25 ` MOUND .. \ 3 CEME TERV w > Q J ALTEnNATE'E Exhibit 4.b.3( l - -- -- -- -- •: «,�..:��«:.r. :.::.: / nKa4r of war IZA Z' ue - - - - -- -- --•- - - - -- _ .E,setI rwrr• BROOKLYN CENTER AuEnNATES •A• d B• . „ •a�dr• rm. mom wuw o.. _ __._ -.__— w. _ a.+wr•rrown•wr+w Mb AM” M ALTOVATE C r i N , � + u . LANE'S BR KLYN dl ' r ' �! I tE _ n 2. N rr. A 10T. u » rr OF ' s ' ►n►r �?�o cep �Fq� AW. ►�o. ry __ � r_E�.s _ •k g 1 CFw tEnv I AtIE INATE "C' LEGEND ® PURCHASE i POSSIBLE PURCHASE • I 1 Exhibit 4.b. .___._ —___ _. ___.._ �..... •.+. �.�..��� M.i.» _. .� - ►Bonk d WAY R[1 A - - -- — — - — -- -- . -- --- �LTERNATE - C - •riK BROOKLYN CENTER i •erra.� mr w•w wage o _— _ --__�. �!f". ___ e'^'a"'•••e�ww...�...w •eNANelI(1� "'ti ' PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY RESULTS RE: 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ' BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ' The property owner survey was sent to a total of 44 residential property owners along 69th Avenue North. Thirty of those were surveys were sent to owners of properties zoned R -1; we received 24 responses. Fourteen surveys were sent to property owners at the Earle Brown Townhomes; we received no responses from that group. Three property owners who did not respond to the survey sent a letter requesting that the City purchase their properties; these ' three were recorded as in favor of the project and as choosing the alternate which would require acquisition of their properties. The survey asked three questions: 1. Do you a) generally support; b) support only if a specific alternate is selected; or c) generally oppose the proposed ' project? 2. Whether you support or oppose the project, if the Council chooses to go ahead with the project, which alternate should be selected? 3. Whether you support or oppose the project, please identify the priority to you of following items, on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) (followed by several items such as safety, landscaping, etc.) ' The results of the survey are tabulated on the attached pages and maps. Some additional facts are pertinent: o Of the five residents who were opposed to the proposed project, three preferred the three lane alternate, and the other two ' preferred the northern alignment. o Preference for a specific alternate is definitely related to ' property location: the owners on the north side overwhelmingly preferred the northern alignment, while those on the south side were more mixed. ' o Nearly all owners identified improved vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle safety and reduced congestion as of the highest priority. ' The survey also included space for the property owners to provide additional comments. These are reproduced below, noting their support or opposition and which alternate is preferred. ' Comments From Respondents "We oppose Alternate C. We can't understand how the houses on the north (Alternate B) and the houses to the south (Alternate A) can possibly cost the ' same amount to acquire. The houses to the north are obviously worth more. Please address this at the hearing. We do not object to Alternate A. ' (Support; A)" "We feel that in general, this proposal would be a good improvement for this area. We chose Alternate A (southern alignment) because we think the ' curvature in the road may help to keep traffic slower. It also appears to us that the houses on the north side are nicer looking in general. However, we believe that the 3 lane alternate would be by far the poorest choice, with the ' potential traffic congestion, and housing closer to the road. (Support; A)" "We are concerned that if Plan A is chosen we may lose some of our property to ' sidewalks, etc., putting us in very close proximity to the road. We would not be able to gain access to the road due to the frequent flow of traffic. This would make it very unpleasant to live there, probably reducing our property value and making it difficult to sell. We are Senior Citizens and are very concerned about this. (Oppose; B)" "I do not feel there is enough traffic for this project. (Oppose; B)" ' "I work hard keeping my house and yard in excellent condition for my family and I don't want to lose the house that we love. We want to stay where we are and don't want to move. If you put in a five lane or 3 lane road in front of ' any houses in a residential area it will ruin it for the kids and families that live here. We don't want a 'highway' going between our houses. (Oppose; C) " "I think a sidewalk should be constructed on the south side and there should be stop signs at each block as well as cross walks. So many people have said ' they use 69th as a short cut to avoid the stop light on Brooklyn Blvd. and on Highway 52. So put up stop signs and get the congestion out of our street. Also, if this has been in planning for 4 years why weren't we informed when we bought permits to improve our houses? We would have kept them up but not with ' major face lifting getting them ready for our retirement. (Oppose; C)" "We definitely oppose Alternate "C" 3- Lanes. (Support if B)" ' "Accessibility to 69th Avenue by residents whose driveway is on 69th assuming our house is not purchased by the City. My feeling is that property value would depreciate if improvements are made and would like to be bought out. I very much oppose the 3 -Lane Alternate where the right -of -way would be extended to the north. I feel my house is close enough to the street now. It doesn't need to get any closer. (Support if B)" "The people who live on the North side would be less adversely affected by plan B. According to realtors, our property is already worth at least $5,000 ' or more less than those in back of us on Urban. Having a busier 4 lane roadway in front would surely affect us even worse. We think the Council has the responsibility to see to it that the least amount of citizens are affected monitarily by this project. We approve of the project, and definitely think that as a first -ring suburb it has to expect heavier traffic flow through our city. Where the traffic comes from is not as important as seeing to it that it moves smoothly. The plan B is a good one. As I see it, Plan A would just put curves in that we have been trying to get out for years. (Support if B)" 1 1 "Short of a toll charge, everybody should pay for this. You have not shown why the so called benefitted properties should be assessed, only. (Support if B ) ' "If fair value is not offered for ro ert taken, counsel will be retained. P P y (Support if B)" 1 "Concerned about the corner northeast of the cemetery. This is a dangerous corner. (Siport if B)" 1 "Preserve old farm house on north side of road by Halifax Ave. By using Plan A curves should keep traffic speed lower for safety. (Support if A)" 1 "Some type of crossover walk from Elsen's City View to north side of 69th for safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, or an underpass of some type. Special consideration must be taken for safe exits out of neighborhood and having as 1 low a speed limit as is lawful. It's a problem (major) now for the neighborhood, if there's 5 lanes, I can't imagine. Landscaping sounds quite costly. It would be the same to me if they attempted to leave the natural 1 beauty of the park quite as it is. (Support if A)" Additional comments 1 The US Post Office expressed its concern that its customers not be inconvenienced during construction, and that their delivery truck access to 69th not be inconvenienced during or after construction. 1 Additional comments received under separate cover are attached. 1 1 1 i 1 1 02/26/90 Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 This letter is in regard to the proposed improvements of 69th Ave. North in Brooklyn Center. ' At the meeting one of the leaders said if we were interested in selling our property we should let the planning commission know. We are the owners of the property at 3955 69th Ave N., and we are interested in selling along with the names and address of the following: After a decision has been made we would like a response. Hazel Dawson 4011 - 69th David & Marilyn Joelson ' 4001 -69th ' Sincerely, ' Richard & Mary Dawson 11133 Zane Ave N. Champlin, Mn. 55316 1 • 1 Phillip E. Wilson 3706 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55424 (612) 561 -1217 March 16, 1440 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works ' 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway ?rooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp, On February IPPO Gateway F. ^ds i rc. of j_a Crosse. Aisconsin notified me `hat," a business decision had been ' made to eliminated the position I held (along with several ethers} with the company, in an concerted effort to lower overhead operational costs." Since that time, I have received 2 ob of -Fers. Both of Ahich, will take my family and I out of the state of ^i nneso -a. ' After consulting .-iy real estate agent, I became disturtingly awar that my home as no market value unsalable) with to or oposed improvements for 69th Avenue .North hovering over s head. Further more, if the proposed z1an fcr the removal : the homes on the southside of the street or the three lane plan is excepted, my home would lose a significant amount •1f it's market value. Again, making it extremely difficult t_ sell, even at a tremendous loss for :.,hick _ am unable to financially ensure. My family and I are planning `o move out of the state of `Iinmescta withfin the ^.ext few weeks. All the financial ' assets own lie wit;in the proper at the :address listed - OVe, Under ?ice sir "Stance am T -- ti ll i ng or able to leave _ ~e state without the -ull market =.:_fie mf the property ' -we nera in Drookl /7:anter. `het, 7 must secure employment _ r ppor± my rami 1''/ ? .tii�i�._ like `.o g ^ ✓ASS the strongest ' e 'tom possible, m _nterest in P13n 9, which will remove tt-,e o� -om 'she of 69th Ave -sue Ncrt.h. yam: ✓ -an 3 pr`ssil7l - a D.- cere'y, - _ 4 nil _son 1 • 1 1 . 1 1 To CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER From EV LYN J DOLS 1 601 SHTNGLE .R� r,K PARKWAY 7OO? `ORGAN AVE. NO . i a BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. 554 0 ■ BROO -i,YN CENTER, MN 55430 1 Subject WTDENTNG OF 69TH AVFNtTF . RRnnKT, 1 ATTN: PHIL COHEN, COUNCILMAN Date h 1 19 �'TRRRY PEDLAR ODD PAULSON " 114 6 A)- 1 CELIA SCOTT, COUNCILT40MAN Q RNTIZE © 1 PLEASE n TIC' RESIDENTS O F B.C. ARE NOT - 1 AGRE ABLE TO THE WIDENING OF 69TH HOWEVER WILL STATE ' BELIEFS AS FOLLOWS: FIRST OF ALL THE WATER TABLE WILL 3E AFFECTED. MORE BLACKTOP, LAYERING OF LAND ON EACH SIDE OF ROAD CAUSING RUa'NOFFS) 1 WE ARE PRESENTLY PAYING MR NEW TRAILS RECENTLY INSTALL ED. THERE ARE ALREADY EAST AND WEST ROADS SOUTH OF 69TH. ANY 'WIDENING OF THIS 69TH WILL JUST CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC DOWN AND UP BROOKLYN BLVD., NOT THE- REVERSE 1 AS THOUGHT. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER "BROOKDALE 3LVD: GOING EAST & WEST. THIS VERY IDEA WILL LOWER PROPERTY VALUES M12NNEAPOLIS IS IN BIG TR OUBLE BECAUSE THEY DID THIS VERY THING. WHERE THEY L'A`VE LEFT PAR2 1 VALUES HAVE ADpg 'T ATEp PTO DRUG PROBLEMS THE PE .... AND BEAUTY IS TO BE SEEN. THE EXPENSE OF THE WHOLE THING, BUYING 3USINESS AND HOME PROPERTY T4 nITT nF =HTR7R OUR CTTY THIS MONEY CAN 37- US En YORE ADVANTAGE _ THAN THIS. WHY WOULD A CITY WHO 'Sgpp THING 1 MORE" CCVLMIT A DASTAHg 1 DEED TO ITSELF. WE SHOULD BE PACES ETTER FOR OTHER SUBURBS. PLAN 5 LILACS ON BOTH SIDES, AND SOME MORE TREES, KEEP MORE PARKLAND OPEN FOR CONSERVING WATER AND OUR GREEN SPAGPSed tt, 1 WilsonJones - 386 !:RAYLINE FOR% 44 -3CO 2 -PART � PRINTc.. .N U S A. _ Manor 1 1 ............................................. ............................... PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY QUESTION ONE: SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO PROJECT _ ......................_ ........_.......... ..................._........... ' North South Total Side Side ' 5 Generally Support the Project 1 4 ' 17 Support the Project Provided The 10 7 Specified Alternate is Selected 5 A- 5 Lanes Southern 0 5 ' 12 B - 5 Lanes Northern 10 2 ' 0 C- 3 Lanes 0 0 ' 5 Generally Oppose the Project 3 ,.. 2 _ ................ ....... ................................................_.._......................... ......... .......... ..... ....... .... ........ ... 27 RESPONSES - _ ................. - - ......... - . ... _._ ......................................................................_................................_..._...._..._... ..._........__..........._._... PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY ' 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ..... ........................._..... ....... _ .... _. __... _ . _. QUESTION TWO: ' PREFERENCE FOR ALTERNATE ................................................_........ ........_...- .................. .... ....- ................- ........- _....... �s WHETHER WE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE PROJECT, ' WE PREFER THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATE: North South ' Tonal Side Side ' 10 A - 5 Lanes Southern 1 9 14 B - 5 Lanes Northern 12 2 3 C- 3 Lanes 1 2 27 RESPONSES ..... .... .. ...... ............................... PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND ' SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY QUESTION THREE: ' PROJECT PRIORITIES WHETHER WE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE PROJECT, WE IDENTIFY THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS PRIORITIES: Scale: 1 = Low ; 5 = High AVERAGE ITEM PRIORITY ' Vehicular Safety 4.45 Pedestrian /Bicycle Safety 4.62 Reduce Traffic Congestion 4.87 Reduce Noise /Air Pollution 4.41 Remove Overhead Wires 2.89 Improved Street Lighting 3.14 Landscaping of Boulevards And 3.50 Center Islands Xx _....... 23 RESPONSES PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO PROJECT w Q LLi w 70TH AVE N 70TH ;AVE. N. a Z W .+ cc Z LL v> 3 Q w w Z J � « IJRQA < 2 a 9 AVE. 6 U 7ER TOl�ER z � c � z uj GRIME w > AVE_ N. ` - - Q or o_ 68TH. AVE. N,�9\� THUR%R Rp > 6 � Q ta. GENERALLY SUPPORT 77 CONDITIONALLY SUPPORT ® GENERALLY OPPOSE PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY SUPPORT IF SPECIFIED ALTERNATE IS SELECTED w w Q 70TH AVE N 74TH! ;AVE. N. > A ¢ a z w H z LL c/) 3 a w > �; Q LL- c, u- URBA < ] Z J U cr Q Q � y 69TH. AVE. N. 6 z 9T h.' z l- TER TOK �`F Li U.S. POST 0 OFFICE Q N u FE Gy z GRIME w > Q a 68TH. AVE_ N_ w l ;� CL a' 6BTH. AVE. N. MIT r&URPeR RD. � 681N(p7� lb. ulU l A - 5 LANES SOUTHERN f] B - 5 LANES NORTHERN =C - 3 LANES PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY PREFERENCE FOR ALTERNATE w- w w < 70TH AVE N 70TH ;AVE. N. > a Q z w H cr Z W � Q w A w — Q � � � URBA bF N. < - Z J O c Q r O LLJ D � Q = Z 69TH. AVE. N. 69 T ...E N Z z I IFR 7 U. S. POST M I O �! f p a OFFICE 4 bt7UMJ ®1t� ai W C£kETfRY w r r �\ GRIME u } Q w 68TH. AVE. N. ) _ _ 4 a Lu co 68TH, AVE. N. <� Q - Z --� - �_. �R RD, Lu _ salH� a LA. A - 5 LANES SOUTHERN 1__ . B - 5 LANES NORTHERN �i C - 3 LANES • CLEANERS• LAUNDERERS 6850 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD PHONE: 612/561 -4320 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429 March 26,1990 The Honorable Mayor & Council Members City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 Dear Mayor & Council Members: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed improvement to 69th Avenue North as is effects our property on the Southeast Corner of 69th & Brooklyn Boulevard. We have been located on this corner for the past 25 years and our business de- pends solely upon the ability of the customer to be able to have easy access to our facility. The proposed closing of our driveway access to 69th Avenue will force customers • coming from the east to turn onto Brooklyn Boulevard , go south on Brooklyn Bou- levard pass the meridian strip and make a left turn into our property . They will also try to exit onto Brooklyn Boulevard going south. This we strongly feel will cause us loss of business due to making it difficult to access from the east, along with possible traffic safety problems. We therefore suggest two options for your consideration, in order of priority: l.Install a meridian strip on 69th east of Brooklyn Boulevard the same length as there is on Brooklyn Boulevard south of 69th avenue. This would allow us to keep a direct entrance to our property east of Bro- oklyn Boulevard. 2. If that option is not viable, then the alternative would be an ent- trance and service road on the property now owned by Brookdale Pontiac. A. This entrance should be as close to our property as possible so customers are not confused as to where to enter. B. Adequate signage would be necessary to alert people of entrance. C. If construction of a service road were to cut off any of our pre - sent employee parking spots, arrangements should be made with Brookdale Pontiac to provide us with replacement parking. Professional prycleaning & Laundry Service Since 1940 •' " "'"" F•Dr�e•r• . "/r� h•�tuu . In addition we respectfully request access to our ro ert from 69th Avenue p p Y during he construction of the road. We hope that the city will g p y impose on the contractor the requirements to keep the access area watered down as much as possible to reduce the amount of dirt dust that will be churned up. We are well aware that there will be inconveniences during the road work, but with a sensitive contractor who will try to accommodate our concerns, we are certain that our customers and business will survive. In conclusion, we feel it would be detrimental to our business or any future business on our property, if both present access points to 69th were cut off. Furthermore, in the engineers feasibility report, there is a recommendation that special assessments be levied against the benefited commercial properties which abut 69th Avenue and have their primary access to 69th Avenue. Our pri- mary access is currently on 69th Avenue. If these are cut off we feel our bus- iness would greatly suffer and we would not consider ourselves a benefited property. Thank you again for this opportunity to share our concerns with you. Yours very truly, /) Bonnie Engler Vice President 1 BE /bn � � � D �_.~~ Minneapolis ����7� ����� ����������)����� PW Days ��"�~~"��^�� �w � �orth /D ���������l� ����l���� /���^������ Center � _y�� �� � 1501 Freeway Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55430 (612) 566-4140 Fax (6l2)56l-A6l4 � DATE: March 19, 1990 TO: Residents of the Northside of 69th Avenue North � FROM: The Northside 69th Avenue Planning Committee SUBJECT: City Council Pre Planning Meeting On Monday March 26, 1990 the City Council of Brooklyn Center will review the proposal to improve 69th Avenue North. As residents of the northside of 69th Avenue North, each of � us have the opportunity to be heard and contribute to the decision making process. It is the intention of the residents of," the northside of -�' 69th Avenue North " to organize and hear the opinions of each household. Our goal is to prepare a formal position and � propose our position as a unified body. The Days Inn, located in Brooklvn Center has donated the use of the Mississippi Room, Sunday, March 25, 1990 so that the residents of 69th Avenue North can meeting to discuss this situation. The meeting will begin prompty at 6:00 p.m. Please, make every effort to attend this very important meeting" � If you have any questions, please feel free to contact: � Jack and Mary Heitzig Phil and Robin Wilson 3618 69th Avenue North 3706 69th Avenue North 561-8631 561-1217 � � Special thanks to the Days Inn in Brooklyn Center (address � listed above) for donating the meeting room and Minuteman Press 7960 Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Park for providing the reproduction of this letter. Both companies have shown a strong interest in our community which is greatly appreciated. . SEE YOU SUNDAY NIGHT/ ' � � � DATE: March 26, 1990 TO: The Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: The Residents Of The Northside Of 69th Avenue North SUBJECT: Expectance Of Plan B 0- Although we do not on the necessity of the improvement of 69th Avenue North. We, the undersigned, do support Plan B, providing the properties on the Northside are negotiated on an individual basis and will be purchased at a fair market price. Olivia Weinrick , 3500 69th Avenue North Tim and Mary Hamslton 3506 69th Avenue North Jeff and Carol Jaunitz 3512 69th Avenue,.North Marlys Armstrong 3600 69th Avenue North _ ?''�- Steve and Cindy D orf North 3606 69th Avenue North - - V Tom and Mary Domka & 4 9?-e- 3612 69th Avenue North Jack and Mary Heitzig 3618 69th Avenue North Ben and Jean Patswold J 3700 69th Avenue North _ �" -�" "ti`s t ` °= t - �'�' ` zy l Phil and Robin Wilson 3706 69th Avenue North Il e Ken and Marilyn Homes t J 3720 69th Avenue North (9` A Russell Moore 3800 69th Avenue North Jim and Elaine Sorenson a" E; t4( -tac: � h g -: ,4w•, �ju<_ 3806 69th Avenue North _ ij� ✓; y't �_!_n_ __n nor ,,.,y'r���- y Carla Rothmanner 3812 69th Avenue North Sylvia Kenney 6900 Frances Avenue, r ' Greg and Debbie B)¢endel 3900 69th Avenue North Bill and Donna Mathias 3908 69th Avenue North - -- Stan and Diane Hahn -- - —- 4014 69th Avenue North Lyle and Pam Blaido 4100 69th Avenue North Russell Mah 4108 69th Avenue North Clarence and Irene Frances n� / 4204 69th Avenue North Marjorie Guest 4208 69th Avenue.North John and Judy Nelson 4212 69th Avenue North Phil and Patty Wagenbach Q 6901 / IIndiana Avenue I 690 7 Palmer Lake Drive ; Zt ' �""" t, r, 69TH AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 26, 1990 PRESENTATION BY SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS • PART I - FROM WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH Brooklyn Center Street System /Jurisdiction Map O • Trunk Highways (MNDOT) . . . . . . . in red • County State Aid Highway . . . . . . . in green • Municipal State Aid Streets . . . . . in orange • Local streets . . . . . . . . . . . (uncolored) • Overlay window (yellow) . . . . . . 69th Avenue West City Limits to Dupont Avenue North Historically a continuous E -W route across the City Cooridor Maps - Show Areas of Concern O o General Problems Along Entire Corridor O o Grading and Drainage • ® o Capacity /Congestion, Safety /Accident and Potential o o Average Daily Traffic, 1987/2007 Air Pollution © o Vehicular Access and Pedestrian Crossings Studies Completed o Preliminary report (by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson) O o 6(f) process Re: Palmer Lake Conversion o EAW (E.O.B. approval) Cost Estimates (1990) ® o for Alternates A or B O o for Alternate C Tentative Schedule - for entire improvement Now: Glen Van Wormer - will discuss details of the studies which have been completed by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. After Glen's presentation, I will review details of the currently proposed project. (Noble to Shingle Creek Parkway) in more detail. • Part II - PROPOSED PROJECT 1990 -10 - FROM NOBLE AVENUE TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY Location Map - (Note: plans for Alternates A, B and C - on walls) © Project Description: Complete Reconstruction 13 Estimated Costs Special Assessments ® o rates o map of commercial properties Revenue Summary Survey Results o Question 1 1$ o Question 2 19 o Question 3 Impacts o p f Various Alternates o Right-of-Way ® Requirements ® o Residential Driveways ® o "No- Build" Alternate ® o Alternate A o Alternate B ® o Alternate C Letters Received (read into record) • I. 71 wJ grpv 101 —T A 00 IT 1=31 I ___jL__ _::,i i znq ;-4 Ol f, - _I L�:JL_ IL TIN I I Wf, ig I fit A,". f. ii TA h3 Mb ne X -.—J AI - 1� i.'n" � 7 4�5 � �' 9 1 I --� 1��� °'�� � �� \ \)''�11 ro / tY t i / � , r�' `f`f _.�1 Rr � ��� , (�'�,✓ ' JL_ R W w 3 L J — -o' C'� ��� _ -' A4i ii - " ) R .. LLJIJ all [I ItZ Yr Tt�x.Y/ TtnF3- _E �, ^C• It 1 lAG"7+n j \� < yZj 1 1 F I 1 1 rp; 7' 'M 7,ml a < UJ M-4 g CL Ui n i:� I IM '-� �t:Rr �^ f h - 1 - -- 70 n. • T^....n.�J.�.�T,r �� a ��r p� l (X ILL �, C.IAC ifiiJ� s ^ = IJC _ -� �n,.t x I,.u121�� S. ! R . Ai l �.i ) I g q � j ;I Z ­ a--r /y / _- 3 M, illiii Tiii i1fin s �b t F tit 1 la _ li - it � t i !i ri f i !i v It ri �� � �� �t h if '1 11 if . Ya i s \ i ✓' 1 .�, ..• '� —n- � , -- '�����. c� a +i tiro it��_ ' h JL r..,.. iiw *lo s t r v 4-4 _• _ .— rr I j. 111 PROBLEMS ALONG ENTIRE CORRIDOR , $ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES INADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN /BIKEWAY FACILITIES INADEQUATE SETBACKS LITTLE OPPORTUNITY FOR LANDSCAPE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES �, 6 -- :1 11 11 if It it _Sf_ b 9f :1 e! if 91 if a! 11 t�f if If if f gf 2! it i! 11 if Ill if lJC _ � �11J 1 1` IIII 1 7 . � —r-III y Rl l__ , M. .. 1111 1 1 l.. a^ - r i ` r - --------- � 1 1 b � -,�__ _ _•�:� .ft � 1....`� �` 1 1 • II..�I�JI -II �; � �� l I -.. 's a �I� r t` (( 1 #_._ ° • - r - — - l� l x • - _.ra �- � _ . •� `'..,, � - _ :-- -" � -..- - "' :.` � . / �. -. 1 � 1 �) � J --- - f FZ t _ ....• �, { - k.'71. � J� • 1Ir � �_ � �� 1/. *.I 'X . + r • ' I I_ { �rarll �� RI a 1 f 14 T J GRADING & DRAINAGE PROBLEMS { Street too High or too Low ,.� • �� Drainage Problems w 1 if if 1 11 i f ;I I e l if . 23 If if if it 1 11 if I if ii if .. It i+ ��,/ —1 �(� ...• vr, Or MROVILIN PARIe i , - - - - I•,+u\ -- --�• �':•. i,.11 in '1 ^ �Iu.IL / ' l..11 •� Fles I U t 1,. -. ; � �,�� '� I !I \..I�� � � � � a. '��� ! i_... _ t �'�-� + �,� // ��5.�.1.. +_l� C�I JI"�[.���[.� � ) Tn Is awf— D - F F f Capacity Congestion Problem Safety/Accident'Problems 0 Potential Air Pollution Problem z �iyy � � YY { .. f �I -.. 1 -- � i� 7r �� 7 p� �� if It �� �� CI ... 9{ t I 1 11� 1f �I I1 1 1 t1 �1 if ,I N� � � it �� • �'h 1 1# .� ` � /C^t(r. � J - gall 11 f•S .. .. i � �f' .. �KJFI Sr � 1....N� Il -_ .-�\ -•LL;. 1 ` � S �h,�J I �.�r� `1 y ''�- - '�..i_ . (lit is 1. _ _ _ �, _ _ - II �` \ \\ f(� a I(y / / //''" II(1/�nrJp� 11�1'.�Cy:�■ ■�I oil L11-`1A AI iI �I [ i p � t j AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES. 1987 9,000 13,000 69500 cn 2007 10 175200 7 200 - � a aa� 1f 1 ilI 1 ��1'1��iI L ��r ,� f�_�� -E�_�� �s_�r �r�Ea h :a �a �a .a ,a .t :t r, �a �a a :.� �::a �t a a a Ea � �a r a_ Via �a a E�. � - .Eu� �a - r � � �a �_�r _� � �� — , . `1 11 . �� rpn t. j -.c �� �`� • • r e r . e . ;I.. • . ^� e 1 l :rl _��� ,rte f " r i✓1 . _.., 1 1 / I I S � \ � _ � �.�: 1%bA IAI .V -1 '7�J1� = �l [` li 7, 1 / � 1111 ay. .0 r - ; * , . ( .. +� ;�'t. �, , `,� `. ' ., 1. �.. �. � -�. �, ul.� � Lent =���.'•� I - ..__� U_ � \ �+ .� r � ey?a\ �`� \\� \� � V.• �� y � `�\ �/ Ii i 1. AL__ ►�� :� �I��C 1 I __���� .._�.�. =-- 1_..� -r y /� � :� K _ _ _ _ ri i J 111 i .,� VEHICULAR ACCESS PROBLEMS f PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AREAS 69TH AVENUE STUDIES COMPLETED ® Preliminary Report • "6(f) Parkland Conversion" process completed (regarding replacement of parkland in Palmer Lake) 3.4 acres "conversion land" 7.5 acres of replacement land • (has been acquired) ® Enviromental Assessment Worksheet (has been approved by Environmental Quality Board, subject to compliance with permits which need to be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources, from the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, and other agencies.) 7 COST SUMMARY: ALTERNATES A OR B Segment Right - No. Segment of -Way Construction Engineering Total i 1 Zane Avenue to $0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 Brooklyn Blvd 2 Brooklyn Blvd $2,100,000 $1,800,000 $200,000 $4,100,000 to Shingle Creek Parkway 3 Shingle Creek $0 $1,300,000 $150,000 $1,450,000 Parkway to Dupont Avenue Total $2 $4,500,000 $500,000 $7,100,000 00 COST SUMMARY: ALTERNATE C Segment Right- No. Segment of -Way Construction Engineering Total 1 Zane Avenue to $0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 Brooklyn Blvd 2 Brooklyn Blvd $815,000 $1,600,000 $170,000 $2,585,000 to Shingle Creek Parkway 3 Shingle Creek $0 $1,300,000 $150,000 $1,450,000 Parkway to Dupont Avenue Total $815,000 $4,300,000 $470,000 $5,585,000 co 4 Y • TENTATIVE SCHEDULE 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS NOBLE AVENUE TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY 1990 & 1991 CONSTRUCTION 1992 WEST OF NOBLE AVENUE AFTER 1992 EAST OF SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AFTER 1992 10 Qtt ti► i � if 1i If CI II 111 91 :I et �! tI it 1 11 1 1 W di f! t I!1 1 it U III! CI 6 �t �i. I � I I If 1.I 11 It ei 1 sM YMd Uk(PM PAM - -- V 1 r .� �` � � ill Ut f i t.... _ �� -� _. �' - �4��1_ _� . � � ! �I III I. -�� ¢����'- - -� �� _ -�,_i �•� -�,� : � � i u�J i PROPOSED PROJECT 1990 -10 69th Avenue N. ,.. Noble Avenue N. to Shingle Creek Parkway PROJECT DESCRIPTION 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -10 BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete Reconstruction (based on Alternates A, B or C) ITEMS INCLUDED: ® Property acquisition ® Drainage improvements A Complete regrading ® Curb, gutter, and bituminous surfacing • Sidewalks and trails Provisions for improved vehicular access and pedestrian crossing safety ® Landscaping • (Possible) removal of overhead wires • (Possible) street lighting improvement 12 • • i x ESTIMATED COSTS PROJECT 1990 -10 Estimated Costs Estimated Costs' If Either 5 -Lane If the 3 - Lane Alternate (A or B) Alternate C I em Is Selected Is Selected! Right -of -Way $2,400,000 $930,000 Construction $2,300,000 $2,050,000 Engineering, Legal, & Admin $460,000 $410,000 ( @20% of construction) Contingency ( @15% of above) $414,000 $369,000 TOTAL $5,574,000 $3,759,000 �11� ESTIMATED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ESTIMATED 1992 ZONING AND LAND USE ASSESSMENT RATE R -1 One - family site that can't be subdivided $1,550 per lot R -2 Two - family site that can't be subdivided $21.00 per front foot Minimum - $1,550 per lot R -3 (Frontage x $21.00) number of units R -4, R -5, R -6, R -7, and all commercially and industrially zoned properties: Zone A: Area within 200 of 69th Avenue $0.45 per square foot Zone B: Area of benefitted properties lying more than 200' of 69th $0.20 per square foot Avenue .p 6 9TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PRO N R 05 R5 ♦� ,� ,� rr ♦ • . , it • �! - I ld ' , w . + • ,• , . r AVE Qn • 1 REVENUE SUMMARY S OF FUNDS AMOUNT Estimated Special Assessments $240,000 Municipal State Aid Street Fund For Alternates A or B $4,584,000 For Alternate C $2,769,000 • County State Aid Highway Funds from Hennepin County (for segment $750,000 west of Brooklyn Boulevard) Brooklyn Center Public Utility Fund All costs for utility system enhancements (not included in current estimate) Total, Alternates A or B $5,574,000 Total, Alternate C $3,759 e 16 PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY QUESTION ONE: SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO PROJECT North South Total Side Side 5 Generally Support the Project 1 4 17 Support the Project Provided The 10 7 Specified Alternate is Selected 5 A- 5 Lanes Southern 0 5 12 B - 5 Lanes Northern 10 2 0 C- 3 Lanes 0 0 5 Generally Oppose the Project 3 2 27 RESPONSES .................................................... ............................... 17 PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY QUESTION TWO: PREFERENCE FOR ALTERNATE WHETHER WE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE PROJECT, WE PREFER THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATE: North South Total Side Side 10 A - 5 Lanes Southern 1 9 14 B - 5 Lanes Northern 12 2 3 C- 3 Lanes 1 2 27 RESPONSES _ .............._-..-.................... ......- .........- .............. 18 PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY QUESTION THREE: PROJECT PRIORITIES ................ WHETHER WE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE PROJECT, WE IDENTIFY THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS PRIORITIES: e Scale: 1 = Low ; 5 = High AVERAGE ITEM PRIORITY Vehicular Safety 4.45 Pedestrian /Bicycle Safety 4.62 Reduce Traffic Congestion 4.87 Reduce Noise /Air Pollution 4.41 Remove Overhead Wires 2.89 Improved Street Lighting 3.14 Landscaping of Boulevards And 3.50 Center Islands ........... ... ............................ . ............. ............................... 23 RESPONSES S S .......... .... ............................. 19 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT RIGHT -OF -WAY REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND WEST PALMER LAKE DRIVE TYPE OF ALT ALT ALT ACQUISITION DESIRED A B C Houses 22 22 13 (Complete) Commercial Properties 2 2 2 (Complete) Commercial Properties 2 0 0 (Partial) ESTIMATED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COSTS ALTERNATE COSTS A $2,400,000 B $ 2, 400, 000 C $930,000 1 10 20 I Y 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND WEST PALMER LAKE DRIVE DRIVEWAYS REMOVED REMAINING CONNECTING TO 69TH EXISTING ALT ALT ALT ALT ALT ALT AVENUE A B C A B C ON NORTH 20 5 20 10 15 0 10 SIDE ON SOUTH 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 SIDE TOTALS 29 14 20 10 151 9 19 21 • IMPACTS OF A "NO BUILD" ALTERNATE • Continuation of existing conditions OR: expenditure of funds for interim solutions • Least current expenditures • Traffic volumes and congestion will not decrease, may increase (but not as much as with the "build" alternates because TV shortcutting" traffic is discouraged) • Safety hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists remain • No change in air, noise pollution • Existing setbacks will continue to be inadequate - (non- conforming to current zoning ordinance requirements) • Adequacy for future? 22 3 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATE A (5 -LANE SOUTHERN) • Curvilinear alignment between Brooklyn Boulevard and Palmer Lake • Construction through Palmer Lake area • Right-of-way g y includes: 22 homes 2 commercial properties (complete) 2 commercial properties (partial) Estimated total value: $2.4 million • Some opportunity for redevelopment of surplus property acquired west of France Avenue • 14 residential driveways to 69th Avenue removed (15 would remain - with right -in /right -out access and potential for back - grounds) • New roadway would be further removed from remaining houses than the existing roadway (creating the equivalent of a 50 foot setback) • New sidewalks and trails detached from the roadway • Pedestrian crossings safer due to center islands (refuge) and TV platooning" of vehicles • Much opportunity for landscape improvements • Increased traffic capacity and safety • Reduced congestion, air, and noise pollution • Sheltered left -turn lanes • Overall - a high level of service • Would require "switchback" of traffic (north to south, south to north) during construction • Estimated total cost = $5,574,000 23 IMPACTS M ACTS OF ALTERNATE B (5 -LANE NORTHERN) • Straight alignment from Brooklyn Boulevard to Palmer Lake (some curvature could be introduced) • Construction through Palmer Lake Park area • Right -of -way required includes: 22 homes (including "historic" house) 2 commercial properties (complete) Estimated total value = $2.4 million • 20 residential driveways to 69th Avenue removed (9 would remain - with right -in /right -out access and potential for back - arounds) • New roadway would be further removed from existing houses than • the existing roadway (creating the equivelant of a 50 foot setback) • New sidewalks and trails detached from roadway • Pedestrian crossings safer due to center islands (refuge) and if platooning" of vehicles • Much opportunity for landscape improvements • Increased traffic capacity and safety • Reduced congestion, air, and noise pollution • Sheltered left -turn lanes • Overall - a high level of service • Would best accomodate traffic during construction • Estimated total cost = $ 5,574,000 24 i IMPACTS O F ALTERNATE C (3 -LANE) • • Curved alignment from Brooklyn Boulevard Palmer g y a d to Lake • Construction through Palmer Lake area • Requires "lane drops" (5 -lane to 3 -lane to 5 -lane) • Right -of -way required includes: 13 homes 2 commercial properties (complete) Estimated value = $930,000 • 10 residential driveways to 69th Avenue removed (19 would remain, with all- directional access) • New roadway would be closer to existing houses than the existing roadway • New sidewalks and trails - closer to houses • Pedestrian crossing safety - approximately the same as with current conditions (no gaps, no refuge) • Least opportunity for landscape improvements (less than with no- build alternative) • Greater traffic capacity than existing conditions • Some reduction in congestion, air and noise pollution • Numerous opportunities for vehicular conflicts in the 3 -lane segment • Overall - a moderate level of service • Poor accomodations for disabled vehicles, service trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. • Would require obtaining variance from Municipal State Aid standards • (may not be possible) • Estimated total cost = $3,759,000 25 i RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION PROCESS • City pays for appraisal (up to $500) • City also gets appraisal • Attempt to negotiate agreement • If unable to agree, City can start Eminent Domain proceedings • New appraisals • Commissioners • Final award • Appeals possible • Relocation assistance • Relocation cost reimbursement 26 ALTERE A LANE'S BROOKLYN � � � � �lE P r'� • (> u S m •' 3 NTER E.H I t r r 1ST ADO. n w ' w • w .s �;�,p' A ER - - — - --- - -• .� MOUND ?n a ,Zq RF j � u w t 3 �' • a CEMETERY , app w > ALTERNATE 'A" k U LEGEND PURCHASE - POSSIBLE PURCHASE ALTERNATE B N R LANE'S BROOKLYN R r ♦ K �S E '� y 2 ' „ W w ,� ' . +r 3 1+ q � ' r s ,u NTER r r HANN � t � Y r r G r P� NORr N C CFR AUD. 25 } MOUND O 0 4 Rp ° CEMETERY w ; '100 � Lu ALTERNATE W w .' c, y Exhibit 4.b.3( i W0141 Of WAY RE 0LWV & p ........+r .., ....w..« .......� .. ���' tiro - - -- - - ..�..a » „•..... / AUERNATES 'A• 88 'B�•r,� -- - -- — — _— ,�: .�,...� »�,... ,� BROOKLYN CENTER tv�oA mw ot•or olc tO _. _.._ . M - -.. _.-- •..o.nrn.n....r. tMr AYHtti k Yq ALTE%ATE C a , W r ' LANE'S BR KLYN ♦ • EtF or a n to 3 ` a En �' ' ; to ra of w • IMAM) r a 1ST. AOO. rr » {{.yT X — * �q �AW. 40. 26: t � � � � ' MOUND � a 1 4 i CEMETERY �! Tt W >- U I ALTUV ATE `C LEGEND PURCHASE POSSIBLE PURCHASE I N - Exhibit 4.b. R10 0 Of WAY nu — -- -- -- - -'. r. w«. ate.« .+ w . r w �• BROOKLYN CENTER ALTERNATE C •nst r�rwo.wt ntY aaor cNatO ow — - -- — — ahwr...w..w.n.w . rw fiM AM" it �n 13 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 26, 1990: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Baskin Robbins 1277 Brookdale Center Breaktime Services 6660 Shingle Crk. Pwky. Bridgeman's 1272 Brookdale Center Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Boulevard Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Brooklyn Center American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center American Little League Iten Field Children's World Learning Center 6020 Earle Brown Drive Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centre 5951 Earle Brown Drive Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Econo Lodge 6445 James Circle Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Hardee's 1601 Freeway Blvd. Leeann Chin 6050 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Leeann Chin (warehouse) 6800 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. Target 6100 Shingle Crk. Pwky. Taystee Bread 4215 69th Ave. N. United Artists Theatre 5800 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. ; , na y� Sanitarian � /� ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT � ,J/' � - Bethlehem Lutheran Church Youth 6844 Shingle Crk. Pwky. City- County Federal Credit Union 6010 Earle Brown Drive Garden City Elementary School 3501 65th Ave. N. Sanitarian ALL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air Comfort, Inc. 3944 Louisiana Circle Allan Mechanical, Inc. 6020 Culligan Way Delmar Furnace Exchange 4080 83rd Ave. N. Dependable Htg. & A /C, Inc. 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. Ditter, Inc. 820 Tower Drive General Sheet Metal Corporation 2330 Louisiana Ave. N. Golden Valley Htg. & A/C 5182 West Broadway Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road Home Energy Center 14505 21st Avenue North Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 5000 North Hwy. 169 J. K. Heating Company 1286 Hudson Road Kleve, Inc. 13075 Pioneer Trail Loop - Belden - Porter Co. 315 Royalston Ave. N. Marsh Htg. & A/C Co., Inc. 6248 Lakeland Ave. N. McGuire mechanical Services, Inc. 20830 Holt Ave. Merit HVAC, Inc. 7801 Park Drive Metropolitan Mechanical Contr. 7340 Washington Ave. S. Minnegasco 201 South Seventh Street Noel's Htg. & A /C, Inc. 4920 Zachary Lane Northeast Sheet Metal, Inc. 4347 Central Avenue NE 0 Owens Services Corporation 930 East 80th Street Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Avenue South Royalton Htg. & Cooling Co. 4120 85th Ave. N. Standard Htg. & A/C Co. 410 West Lake Street Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Ave. N. Thermex Corporation 4850 Park Glen Road Ray Welter Heating Co. 4637 Chicago Ave. S. �_ . �,� �i'� ✓'� Building Official MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. North Star Dodge Center, Inc. 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. L" • -n . �:0_��� City Clerk NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 6843 Washington Ave. Modern Control 6820 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Apple Automatic Food Service 6313 Cambridge Street Royal Business Forms 6840 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 6843 Washington Ave. Modern Control 6820 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Apple Automatic Food Service 6313 Cambridge Street Royal Business Forms 6840 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber Co. 1700 67th Ave. N. Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Ave. N. Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLINGS w � - Initial: Marion Columbus 4006 65th Ave. N. Renewal: William R. and Linda D. Bjerke 3614 -16 50th Ave. N. • (�1 /t�(,ti1pJ}� Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGER Arrow Sign Company 18607 Highway 65 NE Cragg Signs, Inc. 7150 Madison Ave. W. Demars Signs 4040 Marshall St. NE Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave. N. Naegele Outdoor Ad. Company, Inc. 1700 West 78th Street Building Official ^ t ' SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Burger Brothers 5927 John Martin Drive 4 Kohl's Department Store 2501 County Road 10 fyt� v Sanitarian_ SWIMMING POOL Beach Condominiums 4201 -07 Lakeside Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Evergreen Park Manor Apartments 7200 Camden Avenue North Four Court Apartments 2836 Northway Drive Garden City Court Apartments 3407 65th Ave. N. Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Moorwood Townhomes 5809 Lake Curve Lane Riverwood Townhomes Assoc. 6626 Camden Drive N. North Lyn Apartments 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. Northbrook Apartments 1302 69th Ave. N. ` / - �LC�/►'(� Sanitarian TAXICAB �1 l Suburban Taxi Corporation 9614 Humboldt Ave. S. ief of Police GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk