HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 03-12 CCP Regular Session i
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MARCH 12, 1990
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Presentation:
a. Charter Commission - Retiring Member
1. Resolution Expressing Recognition of and
Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of
Dennis Kueng
7. Proclamation:
a. Declaring March 10 -17, 1990, as Campfire Birthday Week
8. Resolutions:
*a. Requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation
to Participate in the Costs for Improving West River
Road between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North
(Turnback Improvement of Old T.H. 252)
-This resolution requests MNDOT to prepare cooperative
agreement to provide for the sharing of costs relating
to the reconstruction of old T.H. 252 (West River Road)
b. Receiving Engineer's Report Regarding Improvements on
Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between
Shingle Creek and T.H. 252, and on Humboldt Avenue
North between 65th and 69th Avenues North (Improvement
Projects 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27, 1990 -11 and 1990-
12) and Calling for Hearing Thereon
C. Accepting Proposal for Engineering Services Relating to
Traffic Control Signal Improvements on Freeway
Boulevard /65th Avenue North at Humboldt Avenue North
and at Dupont Avenue North (Improvement Projects 1990 -
11 and 1990 -12)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 12, 1990
*d. Establishing Lift Station Improvement Project No. 1989-
07, Accepting Engineer's Report, Approving Plans and
Specifications for Replacement of Sewage Lift Stations
4, 5 and 7 and Ordering Advertisement for Bids
*e. Establishing the 1990 Tree Removal Program, Approving
Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement
for Bids, Improvement Project 1990 -13, Contract. 1990 -B
f. Establishing ing Improvement Project No. 1989 -2 5 Storm
Water Detention Pond at the Southwest Quadrant of the
1 4 Brook
/ lyn Boulevard Interchange, Authorizing an
Appraisal of the
Property Proposed to
p be y p Acquired, and
Calling for a Hearing in Thereon
g
*g. Recognizing the Achievement of Karen Johnson
-Ms. Johnson has swum 500 miles in the community center
swimming O 1.
g
p
*h. Accepting uotation and d Authoriz'
in the Purchase of
Authorizing an
Air Compressor
- Approved in street department budget.
i. Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget and Authorizing
the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement
between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn
Peacemaker Center, Inc.
*j. Awarding Comprehensive Municipal Property and Casualty
Insurance Contract
*k. Declaring Earle Brown Days as a Civic Event from June
14 through June 24
9. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.)
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances
Relating to Trespass
-This item was offered for a first reading on ]February
12, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on
February 21, 1990 and is offered this evening for a
second reading.
b. 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 is offered this
evening for a second reading.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 12, 1990
C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Liquor Licensing
-This item is offered this evening for a first reading.
This amendment allows a licensee to
hold more
than one
on -sale intoxicating liquor license and also
establishes a license for the Earle Brown Heritage
Center.
1. Resolution Adopting License Fees for Class E and
Class F On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
10. Planning Commission Items: (8 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 90001 submitted by
Duane Saari. Request for approval of a variance to
subdivide by metes and bounds, redrawing the common
property line between 5113 Paul Drive and 6412 Scott
Avenue North to eliminate an encroachment of the Saari
Driveway on the neighboring lot. This item was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at
its March 1, 1990, meeting.
b. Planning Commission Application No. 89003 submitted b
the City of Brooklyn Center. Request to rezone from Iy
1 (Industrial Park) to C -2 (Commerce) certain lands
lying north and south of I -694 between Shingle Creek
and T.H. 100 /Humboldt Avenue. This application was
first reviewed by the Planning Commission on January
26, 1989, and was recommended for approval on March 2,
1989. This recommendation was reaffirmed by the
Planning Commission on March 1, 1990.
1. Resolution Amending City Council Resolution No. 82-
255 (Comprehensive Plan) Relative to Land North of
I -694 and East of Shingle Creek, Adjacent to
Freeway Boulevard
2. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning
Commission Application No. 89003
P Submitted by y the
City Brooklyn n
Center
Y
3. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding Permitted and Special Uses in
the C -1, C -2, and I -1 Zoning Districts
-This item is offered for a first reading.
11. Recess to EDA
12. Public Hearing:
a. Approving a Modified Project Plan for Housing
Development Project No. 01 and a Modified Tax Increment
Financing lan for Tax x Increment
Financing District No.
01
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- March 12, 1990
13. Discussion Items:
a. Transportation Survey
b. Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation to
Install Lights on the Path to the Little League Field
C. Personnel Request from the Assessing Department
d. Preliminary Budget Discussion
e. Social Services Building Task Force
*14. License to Utilize Explosives for the Howe Company
*15. Licenses
16. Adjournment
EDA AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MARCH 12, 1990
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Resolution:
a. Approving One (1) Brooklyn Center Economic Development
Authority Grant (File No. H -79)
b. Approving a Modified Project Plan for Housing
Development Project No. 01 and Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. Ol
Requesting qu stin the Brooklyn rooklyn Center City Council to Conduct
a Public Hearing Thereon; Recommending Approval of the
Plans
4. Adjournment
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION
FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DENNIS KUENG
WHEREAS, Dennis Kueng served on the Brooklyn Center
Charter Commission from March 4, 1982, to March 4, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Dennis Kueng has served in the capacities of
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and has always been willing to
serve on various ad hoc committees throughout his term; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the
betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens
of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, his leadership and expertise has been greatly
appreciated by the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to
the community should be recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of
Dennis Kueng is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of
Brooklyn Center.
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.
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING MARCH 10 - 17 1990 AS CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK
WHEREAS, Camp Fire, Inc., the national youth organization, will
be celebrating its 80th birthday on March 17, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Minneapolis Council of Camp Fire in the State of
Minnesota offers our young people the opportunity of
informal educational programs which combine group
activities with the development of individual talents,
as well as offering flexible programming focused on
encouraging life skills education for young people to
age twenty -one; and
WHEREAS, as a community organization, Camp Fire is concerned with
preserving the environment, adapting to social change,
the application of democratic standards and stimulating
and guiding young people; and
WHEREAS, in Camp Fire, recognition of accomplishments is combined
with the encouragement to use developing skills to serve
others in the community; and
WHEREAS, Camp Fire is commended for the opportunities its
programs offer to young people in the City of Brooklyn
Center and throughout the nation and for the many
services these young people perform for their
communities as Camp Fire members.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State
of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of March 10 through
March 17, 1990, to be Camp Fire Birthday Week in the City of
Brooklyn Center.
Date Mayor
Seal
Attest:
Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS; Girl Scouts of the United States of America
recognizes that todayT's girls will be tomorrow's
leaders; and
WHEREAS: Girl Scouts of the United States of America
is the largest voluntary organization for girls in
the world and draws upon a large resource of
positive adult role models; and
WHEREAS: The Girl Scout Movement continues to emphasize
leadership and personal and career development for
girls; and
WHEREAS: Our community and ;world will be the direct
beneficiaries of the skilled young women who are
Girl Scouts;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, THE MAYOR OF
DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF _vRCH 11 -17, 1990 TO BE
GIRL SCOUT WEEK
IN
Mayor
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/1
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
0 ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE COSTS FOR IMPROVING WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE
NORTH AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH (TURNBACK IMPROVEMENT OF OLD T.H. 252)
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On February 13, 1989, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a resolution
which, among other things, established improvement project 1988 -18,
Reconstruction of West River Road. Subsequent resolutions were adopted which
provided for cost sharing of engineering services, approval of an EAW,
preparation of plans, acquisition of right -of -way, and negotiation with public
utility companies.
To allow for the timely development of an agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation ( MNDOT), it is recommended that the City Council
now formally request MNDOT to participate in the construction costs associated
with the improvement of West River Road, between 66th Avenue North and 73rd
Avenue North.
Following is our currently- anticipated schedule for this project:
April 9, 1990 - formal approval of plans and specifications and
authorization to advertise for bids; approval of
agreements with utility companies for placing
utilities underground; acceptance of MNDOT offer for
sale of property (MNDOT's house /construction office)
to City; and other related actions
April 18 -27, 1990 - advertise for bids in Brooklyn Center Post and in
Construction Bulletin
May 15, 1990 - open bids (with clause allowing City to consider bids
for 45 days)
May 21, June 11
• or June 25, 1990 - award of construction contract and approval of
agreement with MNDOT (date depends on when the
agreement is completed by MNDOT)
Approx. Sept. 30, -
1990 specified completion of general construction contract
Spring and Early
Summer, 1991 - award and completion of a separate contract for
landscape plantings
Each of these items will be submitted to the Council for consideration at the
proper time.
Council Action Required
Adoption of the attached resolution.
r
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COSTS FOR IMPROVING WEST RIVER ROAD
BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE NORTH AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH (TURNBACK
IMPROVEMENT OF OLD T.H. 252)
WHEREAS, the City Council on February 13, 1989 adopted Resolution
89 -25 approving a contract for consulting engineering services relating to
reconstruction of West River Road (old T.H. 252) from 66th Avenue North to
73rd Avenue North (Improvement Project 1988 -18); and
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 27, 1989 adopted Resolution
89 -52 approving Agreement No. 65711 with the State of Minnesota, which
provided for cost sharing of construction engineering services; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation requires at this
time a formal request to participate in the actual construction costs of
improving West River Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MNDOT) is hereby requested to participate in the costs for improving
West River Road between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North (turnback
improvement of old T.H. 252).
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 3/12/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH
AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252, AND ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH
BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27,
1990 -11 AND 1990 -12) AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON
DEPT. APPROVAL:
1 �
SY APP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
On September 25 1989 the City Council gave tentative approval to a 1990
P � y g PP
improvement program which included the upgrading of the Freeway Boulevard /65th
Avenue /66th Avenue roadway between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252, and the
• resurfacing of Humboldt Avenue North. In the attached feasibility report,
City Engineer Mark Maloney details the proposed improvements which include the
following major components.
• improved geometric designs at the intersections of Freeway Blvd /65th
Avenue with Shingle Creek Parkway and with Humboldt Avenue
• a five -lane roadway with a two- way - left -turn center lane between Shingle
Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue
• a bituminous overlay of existing 65th Avenue /66th Avenue North, easterly
from the improved Humboldt Avenue intersection to Camden Avenue -
and establishing that roadway as a three -lane roadway with a
two - way- left -turn center lane. The existing roadway was originally
designed for use as two traffic lanes and two parking lanes. It is
noted that, under Municipal State Aid rules, the current traffic volumes
would normally require construction of a four -lane (for traffic) street.
However, we have received preliminary state aid approval for the
three -lane roadway
• installation of a permanent traffic signal system at the intersection of
Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard
• traffic signal system changes as needed to accommodate the revised
intersection geometrics at the intersection of Freeway Boulevard/
• 65th Avenue with Humboldt Avenue
o installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection of 65th
• Avenue with Dupont Avenue
o construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trailway on the north side of
Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue from Shingle Creek to
T.H. 252
o bituminous overlay of Humboldt Avenue from 65th to 69th Avenue
o widening of the existing sidewalk on the east side of Humboldt Avenue,
adjacent to the Brooklyn Center High School
It is recommended that the Council accept the City Engineer's report and call
for a public hearing to be held on April 9, 1990. If the attached resolution
is adopted, notices of the hearing will be sent to all property owners
adjacent to the proposed improvements - including the single - family property
owners who are not proposed to be assessed for these improvements.
City Council Action Required
Adoption of the resolution.
•
U
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS
ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK
AND T.H. 252, AND ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH
AVENUES NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27,
1990 -11 AND 1990 -12) AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON
WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with
reference to the following proposed improvements.
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -25: INSTALLATION OF A PERMANENT
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT THE INTERSECTION OF SHINGLE
CREEK PARKWAY WITH FREEWAY BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -26: STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON FREEWAY
BOULEVARD BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH,
AND ON 65TH /66TH AVENUES NORTH BETWEEN HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH
AND TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 252
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -27: STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON HUMBOLDT
AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -11: MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNAL SYSTEM AT THE INTERSECTION OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE WITH
FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE NORTH
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -12: INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC
CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT THE INTERSECTION OF DUPONT AVENUE
NORTH WITH 65TH AVENUE NORTH
AND WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefitted properties for a
portion of the cost of these improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, and that the benefitted properties are those properties which
abut the Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue roadway between Shingle
Creek and Trunk Highway No. 252; and those properties which abut Humboldt
Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. the report of the City Engineer is hereby received and accepted.
2. the proposed projects are hereby established and designated as
noted above.
RESOLUTION NO.
3. the Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the
report and the assessment of benefitted property as detailed in
the report for a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of
the improvement of $1,378.460.
4. a public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the
9th day of April, 1990 in the Council Chambers in the Brooklyn
Center City Hall, 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.
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 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
:BFROO
T v L 1 N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE
911
ENGINEERS REPORT
Freeway Boulevard /65th Ave. No. /66th Ave. No. and Humboldt Ave. No.
Improvement Project No.s 1988 -25, 89 -26, 89 -27, 90 -11, 90 -12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Street Reconstruction and widening, including
signals, utility work and sidewalk /trail construction
PROJECT LOCATION : Freeway Boulevard /65th Ave. No. /66th Ave. No.,
between Shingle Creek and Camden Ave. No.;
and
Humboldt Ave. No., between 65th Ave. No. and 69th Ave. No.
See Figure 1 for Project Location
I. DISC -
DISCUSSION FREEWAY BOULEVARD The proposed project begins at
the bridge over Shingle Creek, proceeds easterly through
the intersection at Shingle Creek Parkway and continues to
Humboldt Avenue North. The existing pavement, now in
excess of 20 years old, varies from 2 lanes west of
Shingle Creek Parkway to 4 lanes from Freeway Boulevard to
Humboldt Avenue. This pavement now carries approximately
12,500 vehicles per day. That is more than double the
volume of traffic that it was originally designed for.
Flat grades and inadequate drainage have also contributed
to the degradation of the pavement. Recent inspection of
the in place sewer line has revealed isolated areas of
broken pipe and trench /bedding induced failures.
The intersection with Shingle Creek Parkway is currently
signalized with a "temporary" system. On November 7,
1988, the City Council established Improvement Project No.
1988 -25 relating to the installation of a new, permanent
signal system at the intersection. Staff recommends that
this work be considered as a part of the improvements
proposed in this report. It is also recommended that a
separate right -turn lane be constructed for the northbound
traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway.
Xi V
It is recommended that the section of Freeway Boulevard
between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue be
widened to five lanes, with the fifth (middle) lane
functioning as a two - way- left -turn lane. This
recommendation is based on the following considerations:
• Heavy turning volumes at the Shingle Creek Parkway
and Humboldt Avenue intersections require the
development of dedicated left turn lanes to
properly accommodate these movements.
• Between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue,
many left turns are made - into the secondary
streets and into industrial /commercial driveways.
Development of a two - way - left -turn lane will
provide a safer "refuge" for vehicles waiting to
make their turns and will substantially reduce the
"friction" which now occurs through this area.
• The costs for upgrading this entire section to
g g
provide a continuous two - way- turn -lane are only
slightly higher than the costs of constructing turn
lanes only at the two major intersections.
The concept of a continuous turn lane has been
successfully implemented on a number of projects in the
Twin Cities area, most notably Lexington Avenue in St.
Paul and Roseville. The five lane design for Freeway
Boulevard has received preliminary approval from MNDOT's
Office of State Aid.
West of Shingle Creek Parkway, it is proposed to
reconstruct the approach to this intersection to
accommodate the revised geometry at the intersection (see
Exhibits 5 and 6 for geometrics at the Shingle Creek
Parkway intersection and at the Humboldt Avenue
intersection).
Increasing the roadway to 5 lanes will involve removal of
the concrete curb, milling the existing pavement,
constructing new curb and placing a bituminous overlay.
The grade of the road will be revised to provide positive
drainage and minor storm sewer reconstruction will be
required. As previously mentioned, a right -turn lane is
proposed for northbound Shingle Creek Parkway. This
construction requires right -of -way from the adjacent
property occupied by EconoLodge.
The proposed widening adjacent to Duke's Amoco, at the
Humboldt Ave. No. intersection, will require relocation of
existing monitoring wells. These monitoring wells were
2
previously installed to track the extent of groundwater
contamination associated with the on -site fuel tanks. The
relocation of the wells will be performed by others at no
cost to the City, according to Delta Environmental
Consultants, Inc. The well relocation will be in
accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's
requirements, if applicable, and outside of any City
contract.
The reconstruction of Freeway Boulevard (and 65th /66th
Avenues No.) provides an excellent opportunity to extend
the City's pedestrian and bicycle trail system.
Sidewalk /trail improvements proposed at this time consist
of widening the existing 5 foot wide concrete walk on the
north side of Freeway Boulevard /65th /66th Avenues No. to
10 feet. This combination bike /pedestrian trail will
connect the existing trail system located adjacent to
Shingle Creek with the proposed system at T.H. 252, which
will be constructed concurrent with West River Road. This
is in accordance with the City's "Draft Comprehensive
Sidewalk /Trail Plan," which is included with this report.
Utility improvements considered at this time are primarily
spot repairs of the sanitary sewer and hydrant relocations
due to road widening. A review of the current and
potential sewage flows for the area indicates adequate
capacity, and therefore, no upgrade is recommended at this
time.
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - FREEWAY BOULEVARD With the exception of
the utility work, the proposed improvements for Freeway
Boulevard are expected to be eligible for reimbursement
from the City's regular Municipal State Aid Street Fund
Account. Repair of the sanitary sewer and the water main
relocation would be paid for by the Brooklyn Center Public
Utility Fund.
It is established City policy to specially assess street
improvement costs in commercial /industrial areas. It is
recommended that the street improvement costs for this
project be assessed to the adjacent properties, based on
two levels of benefit. Zone A is comprehended as that
portion of property abutting and within 200 feet of
Freeway Boulevard, while Zone B is that benefitted
property lying more than 200 feet from Freeway Boulevard.
This assessment philosophy is consistent with the recent
improvements relating to Logan Ave. No.(88 -04) and Xerxes
Ave. No.(82 -02 and 85 -09). It is proposed to "credit" the
assessed properties approximately one -third of the street
improvement costs. The actual amount of the proposed levy
then represents 670 of the "Assessable Project Cost ", as
shown in the Funding Summary. For this project, 67% of the
3
proposed levy is assigned to Zone A, with the remainder to
Zone B.
FUNDING SUMMARY
FREEWAY BOULEVARD
Estimated Construction Cost (inc.
15% contingency) $ 506,800
Right -of -way Acquisition $ 18,000
Engineering (8 %) 40,544
Administration (1 %) 5,068
Legal (1 %) 5,068
Interest (10 %) 50,680
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 626,160
less sewer repair ( -) 65,520
less signal work (@ SCP) (- )110,400
ASSESSABLE PROJECT COST $ 450,240
Estimated City Cost (33 %) $ 148,580
Estimated Assessable Cost (67 %) 301,660
(Zone A - $ 202,100/806,027 sq.ft.)
(Zone B - $ 99,560/1,536,750 sq.ft.)
Proposed Unit Assessments Zone A = $ 0.2507 /sq.ft.
Zone B = $ 0.0648 /sq.ft.
See Figure 2 for Freeway Blvd. Assessment Area
II. _DISCUSSION - 65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE NORTH • This portion of
the project extends from Humboldt Ave. No. easterly
through the Dupont Ave No. intersection and ends just east
of Camden Ave. No. (As part of the TH 252 improvements,
MnDOT reconstructed the portion of 65th /66th Ave. No.
which lies east of Camden Ave. No.)
65th Avenue /66th Avenue North is currently configured as a
44 foot -wide, 2 lane bituminous roadway. This road is
nearly 20 years old and is carrying 8,200 vehicles per day
- nearly double the volume that it was designed for. As
discovered in the Freeway Boulevard area, the existing
sanitary sewer line is in need of repair. Also, the
corrosive soils present in the area have contributed to
recent water main failures.
A study of the intersection of 65th Ave. No. with Dupont
Ave. No. has been recently completed by SEH, Inc. and
submitted to MnDOT. The study found sufficient warrants
4
for the installation of a permanent signal system in
conjunction with geometric revisions to 65th Ave. No.
This signal work is recommended by Staff and costs have
been included in this report.
Other proposed signal work involves the existing system at
the 65th / Humboldt intersection. This work includes
revisions required by the proposed lane geometry and
widening occurring on either side of the intersection.
Roadway improvements proposed include widening 65th Ave.
No. at the Humboldt Ave. No. intersection, to match the
lane geometry established by Freeway Boulevard. East of
Humboldt, it is proposed to transition into a 3 lane
section, with the center lane functioning as a continuous
two -way left turn lane. Utilizing the existing curb, this
design minimizes reconstruction through the predominantly
residential area. This proposal has also received
preliminary approval from MNDOT's Office of State Aid.
Beyond the intersection with Humboldt Ave. No., pavement
improvements consist of milling the existing driving
surface and placing a bituminous overlay.
Widening and sidewalk /trail construction will require an
easement from Brooklyn Center High School. Also, to
accomplish the connection of the sidewalk /trail system at
T.H. 252, it is recommended that the necessary easements
be obtained from the commercially zoned properties located
in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 66th Ave.
No. and T.H. 252.
It is recommended that utility inspections and repairs be
performed in conjunction with the roadway improvements.
Previous inspection has indicated the need to replace
sections of the existing sanitary sewer. In the areas of
corrosive soils, water main fittings should be inspected
and their bolts replaced. Prior to backfill, exposed
water main should be wrapped with polyethylene sheeting as
a deterrent to further corrosion.
Also considered as part this improvement project is the
relocation of the existing overhead power lines in and
near the Humboldt /65th intersection. This work would be
performed by NSP, and costs for such work are included in
this report.
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - 65TH AVENUE NORTH : It is expected that all
of the costs of improvements for 65th Ave. No., excepting
the utility work and undergrounding the power lines at the
Humboldt Avenue intersection, will be reimbursed by the
5
i
City's regular Municipal State Aid Street Fund Account.
The utility work would be financed by the Public Utility
Fund.
It is proposed that special assessments be levied against
the benefitting commercial /industrial and R -5 properties,
similar to Freeway Boulevard. Assessments will be for two
levels of benefit, Zones A and B. It is also recommended
to assess benefitting R -3 property at the adopted standard
rate, currently $18.74 per front foot.
FUNDING SUMMARY
65TH AVENUE NORTH
Estimated Construction Cost (inc.
15% contingency) $ 558,100
Engineering (8 %) $ 44,650
Administration (1 %) 5,580
Legal (1 %) 5,580
Interest (10 %) 55,810
SUB -TOTAL EST. PROJECT COST $ 669,720
Overhead Power Relocation (by NSP) ( +)60,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 729,720
less sewer repair (- )233,300
less signal work (@ Humboldt, Dupont) (- )158,700
ASSESSABLE PROJECT COST $ 337,720
Estimated City Cost (33 %) $ 111,450
Estimated Assessable Cost (67 %) 226,270
(R -3, 805 FF @ $18.74 per FF = $ 15,086)
(Zone A - $ 141,493/733,200 sq.ft.)
(Zone B - 69,691/2,495,343 sq.ft.)
Proposed Unit Assessments R -3 = $ 18.74/FF
Zone A = $ 0.1930 /sq.ft.
Zone B = $ 0.0279 /sq.ft.
See Figure 3 for 65th /66th Avenues No. Assessment Area
III. DISCUSSION - HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH Humboldt Ave. No.,
between 65th and 69th Ave. No., is a 4 lane bituminous
roadway last surfaced in 1973. Due to higher -than-
anticipated traffic volumes, the existing pavement shows
signs of premature deterioration; i.e. severe rutting and
cracking in wheel paths. Insufficient cross -slope of the
driving lanes allows water to stand on the pavement,
6
creating a hazardous driving condition. Adjacent to the
Brooklyn Center High School property, the narrow boulevard
width and location of the chain -link fence create a snow
removal problem. It is recommended that improvement to
this section of Humboldt Ave. No. be concurrent with the
improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th /66th Avenues No.
Proposed roadway improvements for Humboldt Ave. No. are
comprised of milling off the top layer and placing a
bituminous overlay. Also, it is proposed that the
existing five foot walk adjacent to the high school be
removed and reconstructed to a ten foot width, at a
sufficient setback from the curb to allow adequate snow
storage. This will require relocation of the existing
fence and an easement from the high school. Other minor
items involve replacement of concrete driveway aprons and
adjustments to miscellaneous structures.
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH : It is suggested
that special assessments for roadway improvements be
levied against the properties which have direct access to
Humboldt Ave. No., between 65th and 69th Ave. No. All of
these properties are zoned either C -2 or R -5, with the
exception of Brooklyn Center High School. The effective
depth of the School District property is taken to be 200
feet for the purpose of determining a benefitting area.
It is proposed that the assessment for each of the
benefitting properties be on an area basis.
FUNDING SUMMARY
HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH
Estimated Construction Cost (incl.
15% contingency) $108,700
Easement Acquisition $ 11,500
Engineering (8 %) 8,696
Administration (1 %) 1
Legal (1 %) 1,087
Interest (10 %) 10,870
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $141,940
Estimated City Cost (33 %) $ 46,840
Estimated Assessable Cost (67 %) 95,100
($95,100/1,233,748 sq. ft.)
Proposed Unit Assessment : $ 0.0771 /sq.ft.
See Figure 4 for Humboldt Ave. No. Assessment Area
7
IV. PROJECT COSTLFUNDING SUMMARY
Following s a summary of all project costs and revenue
g Y p J
sources:
Freeway Blvd. 65th /66th Ave. Humboldt Ave. Totals
Total Project Costs $506,800 729,720 141,940 1,378,460
Special Assessments 301,660 226,270 95,100 623,030
Public Utility Fund 65,520 233,300 -0- 298,820
Regular Municipal
State Aid Fund 2613 441,280 436,420 141,940 1,019,640
Local MSA Fund 2611 (301,660) (166,270) (95,100) (563,030)
V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: All construction activities relating to
the improvements proposed by this report shall accommodate
the Earle Brown Day Parade June 22, 1990 and the Olympic
Festival (July 6 through July 15, 1990.
Attached information includes: Project Location Map, Assessment Area
Figures, Preliminary Assessment Tabulations, Construction Cost
Estimates, Typical Sections and Proposed Intersection Geometrics.
The improvements as described herein are feasible under the
conditions outlined and at the costs estimated.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for Approval,
Mdrk Maloney' Sy Knapp °
City Engineer Director of Public Works
8
mass : —
• , ►��������t� - ►mot
--
••
Q
a Z
W
W R 5
' `. -= _ =__ -_ •rrrrrr rrr rr rr N �������� �\\\���\�\\�
``, `• _ __= r' iii�iirr rrrrrrrrrrrr rr
� `. _ -- r rrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr rr r
� rrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr rr
rrrrrpyrr .r rrrrrrr
`r. - rrrrrrr rr
rrrr rr
r rrr
rrrr
/V
` riijrrr r >r it'i77ir r
_ rrrrr rrr rrrrrrrr r
D \ \
C IV I
ZONE A - 806 SF / 18.5 AC
7 7 77
ZONE B-- 1,536,750 SF / 35.3 AC
FREEWAY BLVD,
ASSESSMENT AREA
coFY
BROOKLYN CENTER
WNNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FIGURE 2
65TH / 66TH AVENUE
ASSESSMENT AREA p
m .
11 �
t— \ \\
Fl
ky
iRE/
Lo
W W d Q \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\
cr—
C� LL
\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\
•
ZONE A - 733,200 SF / 16.8 AC
\ \\ ZONE 13•- 2,448,543 SF / 56.2 AC
El R -3 805 FEET OF FRONTAGE
CITY
OF
BROOKLYN CENTER
WNNEPIN COUNTY, MNNMTA
FIGURE 3
26 Z5 R
3TH AV E. ;
68TH LAS
1 \ 1 0
67TH LA.I I LL 67TH
BROOKLYN CENTER
HIGH SCHOOL
R�
C2
HUMBOLDT AVENUE
ASSESSMENT AREA
ZONE A
1,233,7
48 SF / 28.3 AC
CITY
BROOKLYN CENTER
HENNEPIN COUNTY, AlNNESOTA
FIGURE 4
N
•
Q
i
PROPOSED GEOMETRICS
SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY/ FREEWAY BLVD.
FIGURE 5
N
� Z
WI
a
of 0
m
5TH AVER. - -
• � II
I►
PROPOSED GEOMETRICS
HUMBOLDT AVE./ 65TH AVE.N.
C oF Y
3[ BROOKLYN CENTER
HEMEPIN COUM MNNESOTq FIGURE 6
R/W
R/ W
50 50
1 10 8 14 12 14 12 14 9 5 1
EXISTING SIDEWALK TO
REMAIN IN PLACE NEW CURB AND GUTTER
ADDITIONAL 5' EXISTING SIDEWALK
TO PROVIDE 10' TRAIL TO REMAIN W -PLACE
FREEWAY BOULEVARD
4 R/W
R/W 33 33
1 10 5 15 14' 15 5 S 1
EXISTING SIDEWALK
ADDITIONAL 5' SIDEWALK
TO PROVIDE 10' TRAIL EXISTING SIDEWALK
TO REMAIN IN -PLACE EXISTING CURB A GUTTER TO REMAIN IN -PLACE
66TH /66TH AVENUES NO.
R W 33 t 30 R W 1 .
PROPOSED EASEMENT
24 8 10 9 2
RELOCATED FENCE
HUMBOLDT A VENUE NO,
TYPICAL SECTIONNNSf
CITY
BROOKLYN CENTER
ol hENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FIGURE 7
Y
{
t
I
-
--
1
:,era._ ...__._...-- as.max -•— 1 � LJ"
1
l x
I L_
LL
UPPER
1)
1 w
f•
€
suX9- -- — —
LAS€
1
o-. \
oG�0o0oaL��a S.rDI A IT Q
J I.1 SIDEWALKS
EXISTING ON STREET TRAILS
EXISTING OFF STREET TRAILS
sx
--- - - -- -• PROPOSED ON STREET TRAILS
-�� - - - --- PROPOSED OFF STREET TRAILS
�� ' ,.�1 T1Z4:T ",I nwv Wna ee MAP 1
Comprehensive Plan
0
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - FREEWAY BLVD., 1989 -26 (SHINGLE CREEK TO HUMBOLDT,
MSA 109 - 121 -04, 109- 111 -13)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SCP, 1988 -25 (MSA 109 - 109 -23)
UNIT
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
-------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
10" WEDGE MILL -BIT ( SY 5,132 $ 0.55 ( $ 2,822.60
REMOVE CONC. CURB LF 4,345 1.50 6,517.50
COMMON EXCAVATION CY 1,508 8.00 12,064.00
REMOVE CONC. D/W SLAB SY 589 5.00 2,945.00
REMOVE CONC. S/W SY ( 197 3.75 738.75
B -618 CONC. CURB ( LF 4,570 6.25 28,562.50
4" CONC. SIDEWALK SF ( 12,000 1.60 19,200.00
8" CONC. DRIVEWAY SY 589 18.50 10,896.50
REMOVE CONC. STRUCTURE EA 6 250.00 1,500.00
12" R.C.P. LF 57 26.00 1,482.00
CATCHBASIN EA 6 450.00 2,700.00
RELOCATE HYDRANT EA 7 1,000.00 7,000.00
6" DIP LF 77 25.00 1,925.00
ADJUST CASTINGS EA 14 100.00 1,400.00
SALVAGE CASTINGS EA 7 100.00 700.00
INSTALL CASTINGS EA 7 50.00 350.00
ADJUST VALVES EA 21 ( 150.00 3,150.00
4" CLASS 5 TON 1,222 ( 7.50 9,165.00
2" 2331 BASE TON 612 32.00 ( 19,584.00
3" 2331 BINDER TON 932 32.00 29,824.00
3" 2341 WEAR TON 932 38.00 35,416.00
2" 2341 MOD. WEAR TON 2,158 33.00 71,214.00
LAWN IRRIGATION LF 3,770 3.00 11,310.00
SODDING W/ 4" TOPSOIL SY 6,300 2.00 12,600.00
TRANSPLANT TREE EA ( 5 150.00 750.00
RELOCATE SIGNAL POLE LS 1 7,000.00 7,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 0.571 14,000.00 7,994.00
BITUMINOUS TACK GAL 3,520 1.25 4,400.00 ,
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIGSYS 1 80,000.00 80,000.00
SEWER REPAIR ( LS 1 ( 47,500.00 47,500.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 440,710.85
15% CONTINGENCY 66,089.15
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 506,800.00
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - 65TH AVE. NO., 1989 -26 (Humboldt to Camden, MSA 109 - 111 -13
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM AT DUPONT, 1990 -11
TRAFFIC SIGNAL REVISIONS AT HUMBOLDT, 1990 -12
UNIT
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
-------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
10" WEDGE MILL -BIT SY ( 4,350 $ 0.55 $ 2,392.50
REMOVE CONC. CURB LF 1,704 1.50 2,556.00
COMMON EXCAVATION CY 352 8.00 ( 2,816.00
REMOVE CONC. D/W SLAB SY 504 5.00 2,520.00
REMOVE CONC. S/W SY 108 ( 3.75 405.00
B -618 CONC. CURB ( LF ( 1,778 6.25 11,112.50
4" CONC. SIDEWALK SF 24,375 1.60 39,000.00
8" CONC. DRIVEWAY SY 322 18.50 5,957.00
REMOVE 'CONC. STRUCTURE EA 3 250.00 ( 750.00
12" R.C.P. LF 22 ( 26.00 572.00
CATCHBASIN EA 3 450.00 1,350.00
RELOCATE HYDRANT EA ( 4 1,000.00 4,000.00
6" DIP LF 45 25.00 1,125.00
ADJUST CASTINGS EA 9 100.00 ( 900.00
SALVAGE CASTINGS EA 3 100.00 300.00
INSTALL CASTINGS EA 3 ( 50.00 150.00
ADJUST VALVES EA 24 150.00 3,600.00
4" CLASS 5 TON 340 ( 7.50 ( 2,550.00
2" 2331 BASE TON 170 32.00 5,440.00
3" 2331 BINDER TON 260 32.00 8,320.00
3" 2341 WEAR TON 260 38.00 9,880.00
2" 2341 MOD. WEAR TON ( 1,545 33.00 50,985.00
LAWN IRRIGATION LF 4,105 3.00 12,315.00
SODDING W/ 4" TOPSOIL SY 8,600 2.00 17,200.00
TRANSPLANT TREE EA 19 150.00 2,850.00
RELOC. 4' CHAIN FENCE -NEW LF ( 135 6.50 877.50
3" R.S. CONDUIT LF 240 ( 6.00 1,440.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 0.428 14,000.00 5,992.00
BITUMINOUS TACK GAL 3,100 1.25 3,875.00
TRAFFIC SIGNAL @ DUPONT SIGSYS 1 90,000.00 90,000.00
SIGNAL REVISIONS @ HUMB. LUMPSM 1 25,000.00 25,000.00
SEWER REPAIR ( LUMPSM 1 169,045.00 169,045.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 485,275.50
15% CONTINGENCY 72,824.50
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 558,100.00
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - HUMBOLDT AVE. NO.
1989 -27 (65TH TO 69TH AVE. NO., MSA 109 - 108 -04)
UNIT
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
-------------------------- - - - - -- I -- - - - - -- I - -- I - - - - - --
-- -- - - - - -- - - - - --
10" WEDGE MILL -BIT I SY I 6,900 I $ 0.55 I $ 3,795.00
SAWCUT CONCRETE I LF I 320 I 2.25 I 720.00
SAWCUT BIT. I LF I 250 I 2.00 I 500.00
REMOVE CONC. CURB B -618 I LF I 468 I 1.50 I 702.00
REMOVE CONC. D/W APRON I SY I 420 I 5.00 I 2,100.00
REMOVE CONC. SIDEWALK I SY I 860 I 3.75 I 3,225.00
ADJUST M.H. I EA I 13 I 100.00 ( 1,300.00
I ADJUST VALVE BOX I EA ( 12 I 150.00 I 1,800.00
ADJUST C.B. I EA I 3 1 150.00 I 450.00
B -618 CONC. CURB I LF I 468 I 6.25 ( 2,925.00
8" CONC. DRIVEWAY SY 4
20 18 50
I I I I 7,770.00
4 „ I
I CONC. SIDEWALK
I SF 14,200 1.60 22
I , 720 00
I
I
6" BITUMINOUS CURB I LF I 250 I 7.00 I 1,750.00
BITUMINOUS PATCH I SY I 65 I 28.00 I 1,820.00
BITUMINOUS TACK I GAL I 2,700 I 1.25 ( 3,375.00
1 -1/2" 2341 WEAR MOD. I TON I 1,200 I 33.00 I 39,600.00
RELOCATE FENCE I LF ( 1,300 I 5.00 I 6,500.00
------- - - - - --
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 94,552.00
15% CONTINGENCY 14,148.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 108,700.00
FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH 166TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
FREEWAY BOULEVARD: SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO HUMBOLDT AVE
Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate
PROPOSED A ZONE B ZONE
PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA AREA
135- 119 -21 -13 -0012 1 3200 Freeway Blvd. l I -1 1 $25,020.80 1 44,800 212,800 1
135- 119 -21 -13 -0019 1 Vacant l I -1 1 12,135.60 1 36,000 48,000 1
135 - 119 -21 -13 -0020 ( 2100 Freeway Blvd. ( I -1 23,310.04 ( 69,200 92,000 i
135- 119 -21 -13 -0006 1 2101 Freeway Blvd. l I -1 1 21,949.00 1 86,000 6,000 1
135 - 119 -21 -14 -0008 1 1800 -1900 Freeway Blvd. 1 1 -1 1 41,165.88 1 109,200 212,800 i
135 - 119 -21 -14 -0004 1 Vacant l I -1 1 351.14 1,000 1,550 1
135- 119 -21 -14 -0011 1 1600 -1700 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 ( 36,761.60 1 112,000 134,000 1
135- 119 -21 -14 -0009 1 6511 -6521 Humboldt Ave. i R -5 1 7,661.39 1 30,560 1
135 - 119 -21 -14 -0010 1 6501 Humboldt Ave. 1 C -2 1 10,044.80 1 40,067 1
135- 119 -21 -42 -0006 1 6445 James Circle N. 1 I -1 1 19,840.16 1 68,800 40,000 i
135- 119 -21 -42 -0003 1 6415 James Circle N. 1 1 -1 1 8,190.72 126,400 1
135- 119 -21 -42 -0010 1 Vacant l I -1 1 2,980.80 1 46,000
135- 119 -21 -41 -0016 1 Vacant l I -1 1 7,244.64 1 111,800 i
135 - 119 -21 -41 -0017 1 Vacant l I -1 1 12,636.00 1 195,000 1
135 - 119 -21 -41 -0003 1 1501 Freeway Blvd. C -2 1 39,524.84 113,200 172,000 1
135- 119 -21 -41 -0008 1 6440 James Circle N. 1 I -1 1 19,726.30 1 57,800 80,800 1
135- 119 -21 -41 -0014 1 1601 Freeway Blvd. l I -1 1 9,952.90 1 37,400 8,900 1
135- 119 -21 -41 -0015 1 Vacant l I -1 1 3,155.76 1 48,700 1
4 -------------- - - - - -- i ----------------------------- 1 - - - -- ------------- 1-------------- - - - - -1
1 1TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTSI 1 $301,652.37 1 806,027 1,536,750 1
--------------------------
NOTES: This listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area.
Assessments are based on the project as proposed.
. FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH /66TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
65TH /66TH AVENUES: HUMBOLDT TO T.H. 252
Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate
PROPOSED A ZONE B ZONE FRONT
PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA AREA FEET
--------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------
36- 119 -21 -23 -0001 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. $78,679.98 246,600 1,114,200
36- 119 -21 -32 -0082 1101 65th Ave. N. 10,980.05 53,200 25,536
36- 119 -21 -24 -0037 6500 Dupont Ave. N 13,280.03 52,600 112,123
36- 119 -21 -24 -0012 6535 Humboldt Ave. N. 15,780.99 63,600 125,670
36 119 -21 -24 -0046 6507 66th Ave. N. R -5 11,900.88 61,200 3,200
36- 119 -21 -31 -0045 6305 Camden Ave. N. R -5 27,207.12 73,200 468,800
36- 119 -21 -42 -0017 6445 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 2,589.12 92,800
36 119 -21 -42 -0018 Vacant C -2 691.92 24,800
36 119 -21 -42 -0016 6537 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 4,519.80 162,000
36- 119 -21 -42 -0015 6531 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 1,450.80 52,000
36 119 -21 -24 -0047 700 -890 66th Ave. N. R -3 12,181.00 650
36 119 -21 -13 -0009 6512 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375
36- 119 -21 -13 -0010 6506 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375
36 119 -21 -13 -0011 6500 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375
36 119 - 21 -13 -0033 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 1,008.42 36,144
36 119 -21 -13 -0032 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 435.24 15,600
36 119 - 21 -13 -0031 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 363.06 13,013
36 119 -21 -13 -0030 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 314.43 11,270
36- 119 -21 -13 -0029 6525 West River Road C -2 397.30 14,240
36- 119 -21 -13 -0028 6525 West River Road C -2 111.32 3,990
36- 119 -21 -13 -0027 6525 West River Road C -2 1,278.71 45,832
36- 119 -21 -13 -0110 413 66th Ave N. C -2 11,426.40 54,000 36,000
36 119 -21 -13 -0109 6545 West River Road C -2 11,734.40 60,800
36 119 -21 -13 -0079 Vacant C -2 12,333.00 48,000 110,000
36- 119 - 21-13 -0080 412 66th Ave. N. C -2 3,860.00 20,000
36- 119 -21 -13 -0086 6646 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 155 FF/
36 119 -21 -13 -0087 6644 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 20 Units
36- 119 -21 -13 -0088 6642 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0089 6638 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0090 6636 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0091 6634 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0092 6630 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 - 21- 13-0093 6628 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 -21 -13 -0094 6626 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 -21 -13 -0095 6622 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 -21 -13 -0096 6620 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 - 21 -13 -0097 6618 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0098 6616 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0099 6615 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0100 6613 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0101 6611 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 -21 -13 -0102 6609 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 -21 -13 -0103 6605 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36- 119 -21 -13 -0104 6603 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
36 119 -21 -13 -0105 6601 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 "
TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS $226,213.37 733,200 2,495,343 805
----------------- -- - - - ---
NOTES: This listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area.
Assessments are based on the project as proposed.
HUMBOLDT AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS: 65TH TO 69TH AVENUES
Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate
PROPOSED A ZONE
PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA
135- 119 -21 -14 -0009 1 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. I R -5 1 $19,213.32 1 249,200 1
135- 119 -21 -14 -0013 1 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 8,986.47 1 116,556 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0015 1 6637 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 3,797.48 ( 49,254
135- 119 -21 -11 -0007 1 6719 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1
135 - 119 -21 -11 -0008 1 6721 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1
135 - 119 -21 -11 -0009 6715 Humboldt Ave. N. R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 i
135 - 119 -21 -11 -0010 1 6717 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 945.17 12,259
135- 119 -21 -11 -0026 1 1537 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0027 1 1543 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0028 1 1549 Humboldt Place R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0029 1 1555 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0030 1 1531 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1
135 - 119 -21 -11 -0031 1 1525 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 378.07 ( 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0032 1 1519 Humboldt Place R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0033 i 1513 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0034 1 1509 Humboldt Place i R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1
135-119 -21 -11 -0035 1 1501 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0002 1 6737 Humboldt Ave. N. ( R -5 1 4,172.65 ( 54,120 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0017 1 6753 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 i 415.37 1 5,387 1
135 - 119 -21 -11 -0018 1 6749 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 i 415.37 1 5,387 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0019 1 6757 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0020 1 6761 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0021 1 6769 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 i
135- 119 -21 -11 -0022 1 6765 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 ( 5,387 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0023 1 6773 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0024 1 6777 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 i 415.37 1 5,387 i
135- 119 -21 -11 -0006 ( 6807 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 i 7,003.92 1 90,842 1
135- 119 -21 -11 -0005 1 1505 69th Ave. N. 1 C -2 i 2,931.96 1 38,028 1
136- 119 -21 -23 -0001 1 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 1 16,730.70 1 217,000
136- 119 -21 -22 -0043 ( 6640 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 3,243.98 1 42,075 1
136- 119 -21 -22 -0038 1 6700 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 ( 3,269.43 1 42,405 1
136- 119 -21 -22 -0047 1 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 C -2 1 12,889.96 1 167,185 1
136- 119 -21 -22 -0036 1 6840 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 C -2 1 1,997.82 i 25,912 1
1 ------------------- 1----------------------------- 1- -- -- 1------------- 1--- -- -- -- -1
1TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTSI 1 $95,121.97 11,233,748 1
----------------- -- - - - - --
NOTES: This listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area.
Assessments are based on the project as proposed.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 3/
Agenda Item Number J C
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO TRAFFIC
CONTROL SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE NORTH AT HUMBOLDT
AVENUE NORTH AND AT DUPONT AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 -11 AND
990 -12�
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP IRECT R OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: J� a
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
On October 9, 1989, the City Council of Brooklyn Center adopted a resolution
which approved a proposal from the firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc.
(SEH). This proposal was for providing traffic engineering services to City
staff for the development of a plan for the Freeway Boulevard /65th /66th
Avenues Corridor.
A report developed by SEH under that agreement has demonstrated warrants for
signalizing the 65th Avenue /Dupont Avenue intersection, in conjunction with
the geometric revisions proposed with the 65th /66th Avenues improvement
project.
Attached hereto is a recent proposal from SEH to provide additional services
deemed necessary at this time. Specifically, the proposed services relate to
the modification of the existing traffic signal system at the intersection of
Humboldt Avenue with Freeway Boulevard, and to the design of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Dupont Avenue and 65th Avenue.
Council Action Required
A resolution accepting and approving the SEH proposal is provided for
consideration by the City Council.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING
TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD/
65TH AVENUE NORTH AT HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH AND AT DUPONT AVENUE
NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 -11 AND 1990 -12)
WHEREAS, the City Council of Brooklyn Center has established
Improvement Project 1990 -11, modifications to traffic control signal system at
the intersection of Humboldt Avenue with Freeway Boulevard, and Improvement
Project 1990 -12, installation of a traffic control signal system at the
intersection of Dupont Avenue North with 65th Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, geometric revisions to the intersection of Humboldt Avenue
North with Freeway Boulevard require modification of the existing signal
system; and
WHEREAS, the firm of Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) has
developed a signal justification report which includes warrants for the
installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Dupont Avenue North and
65th Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained a proposal from
SEH to provide engineering services relating to the design and modification of
the traffic control signal systems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the proposal submitted by SEH is hereby
accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute an agreement with that firm to provide the specified engineering
services at an estimated cost of $13,500.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
*ENGINEERS N ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS 3535 VA
DNA15 CENTER DRIVE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612490-2000
March 8, 1990 RE: FREEWAY BOULEVARD
65TH AVENUE NORTH
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
BROOKLYN CENTER
SEH FILE 89105
Mr. Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Sy:
We have reviewed the work necessary to prepare traffic signal
plans for installation of a signal at 65th Avenue North and
Dupont Avenue, and for modifications necessary at 65th Avenue and
Humboldt Avenue. We would propose the following work program to
provide the necessary design services.
The plan sheets will include an intersection layout, wiring
diagram, detail sheet, utility sheet, and title sheet. The
signals can be let independent of the roadway reconstruction
project which your office is preparing. We have already received
the preliminary design for the Humboldt Avenue intersection
revisions. We will also prepare technical specifications for the
traffic signals as well as "Traffic Control" specifications.
These plans and specifications will be organized so that the
City's specifications can be assembled to complete the bid
document.
The City would advertise the project, open bids, and provide
construction contract administration. SEH would provide
inspection assistance as the City feels necessary. We can attend
the preconstruction conference, approve shop drawings, and locate
signal components in the field.
The estimated cost of the work for the Humboldt Avenue
intersection revisions is $4,000. There will be a considerable
amount of coordination between our office and your office
designer as the final plans for the roadway reconstruction are
SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS,
HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
I
Mr. Sy Knapp
March 8, 1990
Page 2
being completed. Since the signal work will be completed first,
it is imperative that it reflect the final design and that it be
set not to interfere with the roadway reconstruction. This will
require extra care and extra time in the design process.
The estimated cost of the design of the traffic signal at Dupont
Avenue is $5,500. The design work appears straight forward and
we anticipate few problems.
The construction services portion of the contract would be based
on the amount of work the City actually asks SEH to undertake.
Generally the cost of these services has been between $1,000 and
$2,000 per intersection for similar projects.
All work can be accomplished based on a per diem basis equal to
payroll costs times a multiplier of 2.2 to provide for general
overhead and profit, plus the actual cost of reimbursable
expenses. We would propose that the existing contract between
SEH and the City of Brooklyn Center for the preliminary design
for Freeway Boulevard and 65th Avenue North be amended to include
this additional work. We feel this approach will save both the
City and SEH administrative costs.
Work on the project will begin immediately after approval to
proceed from the City. We are already anticipating approval and
are organized to provide a quick turn around to the City. We
believe that final plans can be completed within 30 -45 days of
receipt of approval. These plans will be submitted to MnDOT
State -Aid Office for review. The will be signed by an electrical
engineer to reduce the MnDOT review time.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal for
traffic signal design. We look forward to again working with you
and your staff.
Respectfully submitted,
SHORT ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC.
_'� av
Glen Van Wormer
Manager
GVW:llc Transportation Engineering Dept.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/12/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION RECEIVING LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -07, ACCEPTING
ENGINEER'S REPORT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF
SEWAGE LIFT STATIONS 4, 5 AND 7 AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
�F. r
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: '.��
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
Sewage Lift Stations No. 4, 5, and 7 were originally put into service 30 years
• ago and are in need of replacement. The original installations were
pneumatic- ejector type pump stations, which have proven difficult to service
or find replacement parts for.
On September 25, 1989 the City Council gave preliminary approval to
replacement of these stations, as a part of the 1990 improvement program.
It is staff recommendation that each of these three lift stations be replaced
with new stations near their existing locations and be designed as
submersible -pump, wet well facilities, consistent with recent reconstruction
projects. It is further recommended that the reconstruction of these three
lift stations be concurrent, as one project, to reduce administrative and
contractual costs.
The Engineer's Report, which details the proposed reconstruction and estimated
costs, is provided for consideration.
Plans and specifications for this improvement have been completed by City
Engineer Mark Maloney. It is proposed to place the project under contract in
May, for completion this fall.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution establishing
the project, accepting the Engineer's Report, approving plans and
specifications, and directing advertisement for bids.
r
got
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1989 -07, ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF SEWAGE LIFT STATIONS 4,
5 AND 7 AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City
Engineer regarding the replacement of Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations No. 4, 5
and 7 at a combined estimated cost of $296,370; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best
interests of the City of Brookyn Center to complete said lift station
improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for
this improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The following project is established in order to provide for said
improvement:
LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROEJCT NO. 1989 -07
2. The City Engineer's report is hereby accepted.
3. The plans and specifications for Contract 1990 -C for said
improvement project prepared by the City Engineer are hereby
approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least
twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin
an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement
under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to
be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City
Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will
be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City
Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will
then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City
Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or
certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total
amount of such bid.
RESOLUTION NO.
S. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1989 -07 shall be done
in the Public Utilities Fund.
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 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
ROOKL O T F r T .�y
1 N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE
911
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Replacement o
p f Sewage Lift Stations 4 5 and 7
Improvement Project No. 1989 -07
PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Replacement of Sewage Lift Stations, pavement
restoration and minor landscaping
PROJECT LOCATIONS: Lift Station No.4 - 5555 Queen Ave. No.
Lift Station No.S - 5531 Halifax Ave. No.
Lift Station No.7 - 7114 Willow Lane
See Figure 1 for Project Locations
I. DISCUSSION - LIFT STATION NO. 4 : This station is located in
the westerly boulevard of Queen Ave. No., midway between
55th Ave. No. and Ericon Drive. The existing lift station
is a pneumatic- ejector type pump station, originally
installed in 1960. This particular design is difficult to
service with current OSHA standards for confined space
entry. Replacement parts for the various lift station
components are also hard, if not impossible to obtain. In
addition, the steel shell of the existing structure is
subject to corrosion and shows signs of corrosion in
several areas. Detection, evaluation and repair of the
corroded areas of the shell is extremely difficult and of
questionable effectiveness. The area tributary to Lift
Station No. 4 is comprised of 177 residential units, with
little or no possibility of further subdivision.
It is recommended that Lift Station No. 4 be replaced with
a totally new station on the easterly side of Queen Ave.
No., approximately 100 feet from its current location.
Construction at this new location will require a permanent
»aa ui�wExiu cnr
easement from property owner at 2331 Ericon Drive. Also,
pavement restoration will be necessary after construction
of the new force main.
Recognizing that the area flowing to this station is fully
developed, the design parameters for the proposed facility
are essentially the same as was for the original
installation. The new station, however, will be of a
submersible -pump, wet well design, consistent with recent
lift station projects.
This design is more efficient, much easier to service, and
allows full compliance with OSHA standards. The use of a
concrete shell for the new station prevents corrosion
problems. Also, it is well suited for use in residential
areas because only the electrical control cabinet is
located above ground, and no noises are perceptible to
adjacent properties.
Other than the required easement, no unusual permits or
uncommon construction procedures for the proposed
reconstruction are anticipated.
Please refer to Figure 2 for Preliminary Site Plan of Lift
Station No. 4.
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - LIFT STATION NO. 4 It is proposed
that payment for the reconstruction of Lift Station No. 4
be made from the Brooklyn Center Public Utility Fund. A
summary of the anticipated costs is provided below.
COST SUMMARY
LIFT STATION NO. 4
Estimated Construction Cost (inc. removal
of old station and 15% contingency) $ 75,900
Easement Acquisition $ 2,000
Engineering (8 %) 6,070
Administration (1 %) 760
Legal (1 %) 760
Interest (10 %) 7.590
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 93,080
II. DISCUSSION - LIFT STATION NO. 5 : This station is located in
the westerly boulevard of Halifax Ave. No., just south of
Indiana Ave. No. The station, being the same design and
age as No. 4, is plagued with the same maintenance
problems. The area flowing to Lift Station No. 5 is
2
extremely small, with 21 single - family residential units,
and offers no chance for further subdivision.
It is recommended that Lift Station No. 5 be replaced with
a totally new station located approximately 250 feet west
of its existing location, on City -owned property. No
additional easements or right -of -way will be required for
construction at this site.
Lift Station No. 5 will be designed similar to No. 4, and
the top elevation of the station set above the 100 year
flood level (856.0) of Twin Lake. Placement of the new
force main will require a small amount of pavement
restoration and a new service line for one of the affected
homes.
Please refer to Figure 2 for Preliminary Site Plan of Lift
Station No. 5.
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - LIFT STATION NO. 5 Payment for the
reconstruction of Lift Station No. 5 should be made from
the Brooklyn Center Public Utility Fund. Anticipated
costs are summarized below.
COST SUMMARY
LIFT STATION NO. 5
Estimated Construction Cost (inc. removal
of old station and 15% contingency) $ 83,000
Engineering (8 %) $ 6,640
Administration (1 %) 830
Legal (1 %) 830
Interest (10 %) 8,300
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 99,500
III. DISCUSSION - LIFT STATION NO. 7 : Lift Station No. 7, located
at 7114 Willow Lane, is a pneumatic- ejector pump station
that was constructed in 1961. Fifty -nine residential
units ultimately flow to Lift Station No. 7, eighteen of
which are located in the City of Brooklyn Park. Flow from
these residences is allowed through an existing agreement
between the cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center.
It is recommended that Lift Station No. 7 be replaced with
a totally new station located approximately 150 feet north
of the existing location. This location, on the west side
3
of Willow Lane, would allow construction without any
additional right -of -way or easements.
The design of this lift station would be similar to that
which is proposed for Lift Stations No. 4 and 5.
Construction of the new force main will require the
replacement of approximately 350 feet of Willow Lane and
the extension or reconnection of a small number of
residential services.
Please refer to Figure 2 for Preliminary Site Plan of Lift
Station No. 7.
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - LIFT STATION NO. 7 It is suggested
that payment for the reconstruction of Lift Station No. 7
be made from the Brooklyn Center Public Utility Fund. A
summary of the anticipated costs is provided below.
COST SUMMARY
LIFT STATION NO. 7
Estimated Construction Cost (incl. removal
of old station and 15% contingency) $ 91,510
Engineering (8 %) $ 7,320
Administration (1 %) 920
Legal (1 %) 920
Interest (100) 9,150
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 109,820
Attached information includes: Project Location Map and Preliminary
Site Plans.
The improvements as described herein are feasible under the
conditions outlined and at the costs estimated.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for Approval,
M rk Maloney S nape
City Engineer Director of Public Works
4
i
-
-.
� PT:q Em
;� I r w 1 1 r1TT7TTT1'l � t
i
z
i
MINN
L 52N0
LIFT STATION # 4 LIFT STATION # 5
,a i
- - --
4- 73RD AVE. N.
7240 ANEW
z - 1
j : Y - !
71sT AVE. N.
9 k 7" G1N AVE. N
I�I 1
`4`�.0 pu _.` _ _ I I 69TH AVE. N.
+'
252 rk
C 1 _y
611711 AVE. N.
o-�
LIFT STATION #� 7
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -07
LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT
LOCATI MAP
CITY
Of
BROOKLYN CENTER
WNNEPIN C"11 - f, MNNE90TA
'FIGURE 1
LIFT STATION , #4 4
3 I I K :].e
ErC N
/ 2.Oa -,STN 4
JW " TING LIFT STATION
KEEN
_ -- coannucT �e —
REPLACj NT LIFT R STATfiON
.]„
4 � _ 3
LIFT STATION I i
0 ` V.
lz
L
� W
2 a
O 511 D1 - Sf DO
N
5601 IN N
- MN • N �+-�
.O -- N -
nsrt.fENE.rT r I I `.1]rlroD _ y
X1 ` THIN I 1 IFT STATION
REPLACEMENT LIFT STATI
2 LIFE' STATION'
7119 RE ACEMENT LIFT
7128 S TION
- DREA EE1�fiT
• T ' 9 C�
' •/S1r f /
7130
L ` '� �DENOti, BITVr.NNW, n[vave� s
B'..� 7124
7112 3
�CrS'F1Ng�`LIFT STATION
K CITY
OF
BROOKLYN CENTER
tENNERN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/12/90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 1990 TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
1990 -13, CONTRACT 1990 -B
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY K PP D ACTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
• The City of Brooklyn Center annually establishes a Shade Tree Removal project
to expedite the removal of diseased trees and other nuisance trees. Nearly
600 trees were marked for removal under last year's program, 378 of which were
removed by the City's tree contractor, North Wood Company. A summary of the
tree removal program from 1974 -1989 is attached. Preliminary estimates by
University of Minnesota specialists suggest a six to ten percent increase in
the number of diseased trees in 1990. It is not certain what the increase
in Brooklyn Center will be.
The City utilizes a "fast track" system of procedures for administering this
program. These procedures were approved by the Council in 1987, and are
intended to, as the name implies, speed up the process. Figure 1 shows the
process that is followed for a typical tree.
Minor changes have been made to the specifications. These:
• Define "immediately," where used, to mean within 24 hours.
• Specify that stumps not ground immediately upon tree removal must
be totally debarked.
• Clarify the City Engineer's flexibility to order one -week or
two -week work lists, and lists that are organized geographically.
Tree program administrative procedures are also being reviewed and revised to
ensure that no trees "fall through the cracks."
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution establishing
the project, approving plans and specifications, and directing advertisement
for bids.
NOTE City Staff are currently preparing a report regarding development of a
"Reforestation Program." That report will be presented at the April 9, 1990
Council meeting.
•
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 1990 TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -13,
CONTRACT 1990 -B
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, that:
1. The following project is hereby established:
TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -13
2. The specifications for Contract 1990 -B for said improvement
project are approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk.
3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least
twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin
an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement
under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to
be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City
Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will
be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City
Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will
then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City
Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or
certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total
amount of such bid.
4. The accounting for the project shall be in the Tree Removal Fund.
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
TABLE 1
City of Brooklyn Center
Diseased Tree Removal Program Summary
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Elms Marked and Removed 34 47 267 614 712 487 178 583 389 288 517 574 389 272 401 490
Oaks Marked and Removed 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 26
Other Trees Marked and Removed 73 65
TOTAL TREES MARKED 1 38 1 47 267 617 712 487 178 583 389 288 517 574 389 272 479 581
Boulevard Stumps Marked (No records kept) 102 6 3 1 18 27 16 15 12 17 8 6
and Removed
Private Stumps Marked (No records kept) 68 19 13 14 11 2 4 18 0 1 0 5
and Removed
TOTAL TREES /STUMPS MARKED 38 47 267 617 882 1 512 1 194 598 1 418 317 537 607 401 290 487 592
Number of Brush /Log Piles (No records kept) 128 44 58 47 41 45 25 39 21 5 8 7
Removed or Debarked
Trees and Stumps Removed in 1989
Boulevard Private Park Stumps
Trees Trees Trees Only Total
By Contractor 132 106 134 6 378
By State Crews 1 7 0 1 9
By County Crews 0 0 42 0 42
By Property Owner 6 153 0 4 163
TOTAL REMOVED IN 1989 139 266 176 11 592
Diseased Tree Removal Program
Fast Track Procedures
1 Up To Up To Two
Day 1 Week 20 Days -- -- One To Two Weeks -- -- - Weeks
Owner Chooses Inspected By Tree
To Remove Tree Inspector, Who Will
Himself, Within Approve Or Will
20 Days Require Additional
Work Or Clean -Up
Placed On Tree Contractor Has
Owner Requests Work List, Two Weeks To
Tree Owner City Tree Usually Within Complete List
Marked Notified Contractor To Two Weeks
Remove Tree
Attempt To Contact Owner Removes
Via Phone; If Can't, Tree Himself
Owner Makes Delinquent Notice
No Response Delivered By Police
Within 20 Days (In Town) or Owner Requests
Certified Mail City Tree
(Out of Town) Contractor To
Remove Tree
Council
Declares
Tree A No Response
Nuisance In 5 Days-
City Orders
Contractor To
Remove Tree
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/12/90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
* ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
**
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -25, STORM WATER DETENTION
POND AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE I94/694 - BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
INTERCHANGE, AUTHORIZING AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED,
AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
I — 4-e�fl" ')
SY AP ECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
�.
V
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
On several occasions a review of the storm drainage systems which serve
Interstate 94 694 between Brooklyn n Boul
/ evard and Regent e
• y g t Avenu and the area
which lies between I- 94/694 and 68th Avenue North has indicated that these
systems are somewhat inadequate to handle storm water runoff in relation to
current design standards. In addition, the future upgrade of I94/694 (i.e. -
the addition of a third lane in each direction), west from Brooklyn Boulevard,
which is now scheduled for 1994 -95, will result in a faster runoff of storm
waters and capacity problems unless the storm drainage system(s) are improved.
During the past year City staff has discussed this matter with MNDOT and we
have suggested that they consider the possibility of constructing a storm
water detention pond on the 4.1 acre undeveloped parcel of property which lies
in the southwest quadrant of the I94/694 - Brooklyn Boulevard interchange (see
attached location map). After their review of this suggestion MNDOT has
advised the City that:
• they believe this site could provide the additional system capacity
needed to serve the area.
• they are unable to proceed with acquisition of the property at this
time, due to funding constraints and due to their need to obtain Federal
Highway Administration approval to purchase the site. It is estimated
that it could take three to four years before MNDOT could proceed with
site acquisition.
o MNDOT is willing to enter into an agreement with the City which would
provide that the City purchase the site, MNDOT would build the pond, and
the City would then maintain the pond. MNDOT has prepared a proposed
"Letter of Understanding" (copy attached) for consideration by the City.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation
The following comments are offered for consideration by the City Council:
• while the City would obtain some direct benefit from the additional
capacity provided by the proposed pond, this consideration by itself
will not justify the City's costs under MNDOT's proposal.
• failure to obtain the property now could result in other development of
this property, makin g it unfeasible to proceed with this "solution" when
MNDOT gets ready to proceed with the I94/694 improvement.
• because of its proximity to the interchange ramp, development of a
non - hazardous access to this site is very difficult. In previous site
plan approvals, the City has always required that access be limited to
the southernmost portion of the parcel's frontage on Brooklyn Boulevard,
and that the access be limited to a right -in, right -out condition. Even
those conditions, however, cannot assure that development of the site
would not result in dangerous access conditions.
• o the site is zoned C -1. Based on public reaction to previous development
proposals, there appear to be few financially - practical land uses which
do not create substantial land use conflicts with adjacent development.
Consideration of all of these factors may indicate that there is a public
purpose and a cost justification for proceeding with acquisition of the site
and its development as a storm water detention pond.
Recently, the current owners of the site contacted City staff and expressed a
willingness to negotiate the sale of the property to the City.
If the City Council is interested in pursuing this concept, it is recommended
that the attached resolution be adopted to:
• establish the project;
• authorize the City Manager to hire an appraiser to appraise the value of
this property; and
• establish a public hearing date for consideration of the concept.
Note because storm water detention ponds are allowed uses in any
zoning area, no rezoning would be required. However, it is recommended
that a hearing be conducted to obtain public input regarding this
proposed use and regarding design details if a pond is to be
constructed; i.e. - should it be a "dry" pond (dry during dry weather
• conditions) or as a "wet" pond (with a permanent 2 -foot to 4 -foot deep
pond); can /should wetland areas be reserved• what type of amenities
P � P
Y
• (landscape, trials, etc.) should be incorporated into the site design;
etc.
City Council Action Required
• review and discuss this proposal
• consider adoption of the attached resolution
• Note: It is not recommended that approval of MNDOT's "Letter of
Understanding" be formally considered until after a public hearing is
held, and the costs of acquiring the property are known.
However, if the City Council wishes to suggest amending the terms of
MNDOT's draft "offer," staff could attempt to negotiate such revisions
during the time that other matters proceed.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -25,
STORM WATER DETENTION POND AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF
THE I94/694 - BROOKLYN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE, AUTHORIZING
AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED, AND
CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON
WHEREAS, existing storm drainage systems serving the areas between
66th and 68th Avenues North, including Interstate Highway 94/694, between
Xerxes Avenue and Regent Avenue are inadequate to properly service existing
and future development of that area and of I94/694; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) has
advised the City that the development of a storm water detention pond on a 4.1
acre parcel of property located in the southwesterly quadrant of the I94/694 -
Brooklyn Boulevard interchange area could alleviate storm drainage problems,
and MNDOT has prepared and submitted a proposed letter of understanding to the
City relating to acquisition and development of that parcel of property for
use as a storm water detention pond; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the acquisition
and development of that parcel as a storm water detention pond would also
avert serious traffic safety problems on Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) and
land use conflicts which could result from commercial development of that
parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to further evaluate the feasibility
of acquiring and developing this parcel for storm water detention purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed project is hereby established as follows:
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -25
STORM WATER DETENTION POND AT I94/694 -
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to employ the
services of a qualified appraiser for the purpose of appraising
the value of the parcel (PID #34- 119- 21 -24- 0008).
RESOLUTION NO.
3. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the
9th day of April, 1990 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at
8 :00 p.m. local time. The Clerk shall give mailed notice of the
hearing to all owners of properties lying within 350 feet of the
parcel proposed to be developed, and shall give ;published notice
of the hearing.
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�
rai
INS
SO
INS
INS
DU
OFFICE
I
W o SO
1111/ a � ISO w �.
F INS
SIN
-• iii
�IN�U�a��u��� /�/►�� ��Nnll��!!��NUG.� ,� �itnl� �..��1� ,,
i
IVA
M onti 0 Nam
00 saw
mm mm MISS i�A= 111-ft
Aft Q
q tj rJA
WIN
p � ��= :: �� .�� �= ♦ � , u�.� ...nor
r
''^' �. ■��►�,� �
OR
Owl lung
Iffily
ANN. MEOW
WIN
\ Y•r
25L 0 ML 26
` I ------------- -- - --' -- � m
I
T • 1
\ O F
.tip --------------------------------
--
I I
I 2 �
I `
` 4 (Il 6601 l 66Q5 (26)
♦ \ \ IN
t ♦♦ i f \ \ .......... . . ..
�Y'� ♦ \ ' .j1Li9 )
(26)
s yam' �•t `` `\ s b (2) 8X (Z5)
` \
(25)
s b �� t\ �\
10 —__ - ----- so
Tam
66TH AVE N t '
4 � °�� PROPOSED Iz
r
ts) Iw
fzol `\ 4.1 ACRE > 2 Y
(2l
\, 6536 y 'b "
(32) `' n w 04f
(24) (6) IZ
Is so DETENTIONS N (;) 6 (J0)
6530
a , ML u a e Pp - $26
41ao a Suf s POND
„
65 /8 (21) SITE
(�2) ; 65/1 (20)
4101 - --- - Y-c.m a l
2•S'1G'
!0. r-
006
:s J I6) (IS) s d ssos \ \ s�Y'' •��
(50)
4200 4112 , lOZf
(le) 4106 41M .r 4011 00� a 650/ \ 8
T Rr• ISO 7! Ts M r� `:` �t (51)
0. s
wa] _ �— --)}- M
at me .o OOe fl ' ��
\.. so. (106) \s ( 107) y
�.
so IO/O
(101) �' � ♦ y - \
5451
(65) (66) (e6) (05) } 0.0 $
PREPARED BY UITIW?
'O" "ESOr Minnesota Department of Transportation
o ° y
n ° Metropolitan District
Transportation Building
� St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
°F TFk Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Reply to Golden Valley Office
January 12, 1989 Telephone No 593 -8404
Mr. Sy Knapp
City Engineer
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: CS 2786 (I -94) at the SW Quad. of Brooklyn Blvd.
Proposed Pond for the Storm Drainage Sys. from
2350' E. of Zane Ave. to Shingle Creek
Planning, Right of Way, Design, Construction and
Maintenance Letter of Understanding
Dear Mr. Knapp:
This letter shall serve as a letter of understanding between the City of
Brooklyn Center and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, concerning
planning, right of way acquisition, designing, construction, and maintenance
for the above referenced project. Attached is a color coded reference map
included for clarification.
The State of Minnesota agrees to the following:
1. Mn /DOT shall design a ponding area at the site to receive stormwater
runoff from the city and highways drainage area extending from 2350
east of Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard.
2. Mn /DOT shall prepare final plans for a ponding area at this site to be
incorporated into the I -94 reconstruction project west of Brooklyn
Boulevard.
3. Mn /DOT shall construct the pond at this site at no cost to the City,
with the I -94 reconstruction project west of Brooklyn Boulevard.
The City of Brooklyn Center agrees to the following:
1. The City shall acquire all right of way required for a pond at this
site.
� � MINNESOTA � �
1990
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Sy Knapp
January 12, 1989
Page Two
2. The City shall dedicate a drainage easement to the State, at no cost to
the State, at this site.
3. A preliminary design concept shall be forwarded to Mn /DCT after public
comment and the resolution of conflicts.
4. Permanent maintenance of the pond site shall be the responsibility of
the City.
City of Brooklyn Center hereby accepts and agrees to the terms and
conditions set forth in this letter of understanding.
City of Brooklyn Center
By
Its
The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation hereby accepts and
agrees to the terms and conditions set forth in this letter of
understanding.
State of Minnesota,
4 �e � *—(- — _ L �
Its
S e r
Michael M. ristensen, P.E.
Assistant District Engineer ,'
DEPARTMENT : M /DOT - O perations Division STAVE OF MINNESOTA
Metro District - Golden Valley Office'• F ,
SIC.; e o c°�.. nciu:
DATE January 12, 1990
To File
FROM : Ellen G. Anderson
District Hydraulics Engineer
PHONE : 593 -8504
SUBJECT C. S . 2786 (I -94)
Storm Drainage System
West of Brooklyn Blvd.
Review of the "as- built" culvert inventory completed by Brooklyn Center
indicated that culverts downstream of the north ditch line were not
constructed as low as early plans proposed. Therefore, in order to develop
this ponding area, the existing ditch blocks on I -94 approximately 2350'
east of Lane Avenue should be maintained at the existing elevations as the
western boundary of the drainage area to the proposed pond.
The overflow elevation to the east is 864 at the NE ramp and 859.2 at the SE
ramp. The extensions of the pipes under the SE ramp have possibly blocked
this overflow and the
area south of the ram p should be cross - sectioned to
establish the overflow. If the capacity of the downstream storm sewer to
the east is exceeded, the interchange areas will begin to flood. Using the
storage in this pond plus the storage in the interchange, the drainage area
should be flood routed with the 2 - 48 inlets and the tailwater at Xerxes
to determine the overflow capacity needed. I would recommend trying a 24"
RCP jacked under the SE ramp at 857.0 to eliminate any threat of ponding for
the homes adjacent to this ponding area. The pipe could outlet on top of
the 60" storm sewer. I recommned proceeding with this ponding area.
EGA :dcr
cc: Central Files
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF KAREN JOHNSON
WHEREAS, over a three -year period, Karen Johnson, 7456
Lee Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, has swam 500 miles in
the Brooklyn Center pool; and
WHEREAS, this achievement reflects the dedication,
skill, and perseverance of Ms. Johnson; 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 Karen Johnson
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 3/1 2 An
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF AN AIR
COMPRESSOR
DEPT. APPROVAL: /
SY KNAPP DI ECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
J
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
The Street Maintenance division 1990 budget includes $20,000 to rehabilitate
• vehicle #639 for use by sign shop personnel. The $20,000 includes $12,000 for
an air compressor, $6,000 for a fiberglass utility body, and $2,000 for
frame and other rehabilitation work.
Two quotations have been received for the air compressor, with the low bid
being $10,100. Separate proposals will be received for the other components
needed for rehabilitation of this unit. However, there is no question that
total costs will stay within the budgeted amount.
Recommendation
A resolution accepting the lowest bid for the air compressor is provided for
council consideration.
�h
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF AN AIR COMPRESSOR
WHEREAS, the 1990 budget authorized the rehabilitation of vehicle
#639 for use by Street Maintenance Division sign shop personnel; and
WHEREAS, that rehabilitation includes purchase and installation of an
air compressor; and
WHEREAS, quotations were received in the following amounts:
Bidder Amount
Carlson Equipment $10,100
Ruffridge- Johnson 12,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center accepts the quotation of Carlson Equipment in the amount of
$10,100, and authorizes and directs the City Manager to purchase said air
compressor.
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.
(42CAPOUT) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
GENERAL FUND BUDGET
JUSTIFICATION OF CAPITAL OUTLAYS REQUESTS
1. Department: Street Maintenance Division Dept. #: 42 Object #: 4553
Item 3 Alt.
2. Give description and quantity of item requested. Indicate date desired.
1 - Rehab Unit #639 (1 ton cab & chassis 1983 Ford 1 ton)
1 - Fiberglass utility body January, 1990
1 - Trailer mounted air compressor
3. Describe the necessity for and /or benefits or savings expected from this
item.
This is an alternative to the customer made sign truck and sign body with
air compressor.
4. If the item requires an increase in personal services for the activity,
state the job title(s) contingent upon the item.
N/A
5. Indicate any expenses necessary to place this item in operation and whether
these expenses are included in your budget request.
N/A
6. List any item which will be replaced by this purchase. State
recommendations for disposition of this item. For example, trade -in,
salvage, discard, etc.
1977 Ford 3/4 ton pickup would be sent to Hennepin County Auction
7. Estimated Net Cost: $20,000
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Trade -in Net Total Cost
Rehab. 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ -0- $ 2,000
Body 1 6,000 6,000 -0- 6,000
Air C. 1 12,000 12,000 -0- 12.000
$20,000
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/12/90 p
Agenda Item Number p %
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AND BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER, INC.
DEPT. APPROVAL-
Personnel Co ordinator
Signatu e - title s�
MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
• At its February 26, 1990, meeting, the Brooklyn Center city council directed staff to draw up an
agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. (BPC) for the
provision of services by BPC to the City. Attached is an agreement and a resolution that would
transfer $5,000 from the contingency account to the social services account of the 1990 City budget.
City Attorney Charlie LeFevere and Mayor Nyquist have reviewed the agreement, and any
recommended changes by them have been made.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Consider a Resolution Amending the 1990 General Fund
Budget and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement Between the City of
Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc.
s
U
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER AND BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER INC
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, the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center,
Inc. are desirous of entering into an agreement for the provision of services
from Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center:
1. The 1990 General Fund Budget is amended as follows:
Increase the Appropriation for the following line item
Brooklyn Peacemaker Center
Unit No. 52, Account No. 4420 $5,000
Decrease the Appropriation for the following line item
Unallocated Expenses Contingency
Unit No. 80, Account No. 4995 $5,000
2. The City Council has reviewed the Agreement Between the City of
Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. and finds the
execution of the agreement is in the best interest of the City of
Brooklyn Center.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute
the agreement on behalf of the City.
4. The City Manager is directed to transmit an executed copy of the
agreement to Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc.
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.
y P P
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
and
BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER, INC.
This Agreement is made the day of 1990, between the City of
Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the Brooklyn Peacemaker
Center, Inc., hereinafter referred to as BPC;
In consideration of the covenants set forth herein, the City and BPC agree as
follows:
Services Provided BPC, within its financial resources, agrees to provide its
full range of professional and volunteer services to the residents of the City
including, without limitation, the following:
a. Coordination services for citizens of Brooklyn Center needing assistance
because of child abuse and domestic abuse.
b. Juvenile diversion services for juveniles passing through the juvenile
justice system, provided that the records and identity of the juveniles
shall be provided to BPC pursuant to Minn. Stat. 260.161.
C. Services to establish and maintain peer groups to deal with specific
populations, such as troubled youth, who are experiencing conflict and
turmoil in their lives.
d. Services for referring individuals and families who are experiencing
turmoil and conflict in their lives to the appropriate professional
counselors.
e. Such other services of a similar nature as may be assigned from time to
time by the City Manager of the City and as agreed to by the BPC Board
of Directors.
Limitations and Re BPC shall not compete with the City or other Social
Agencies by providing services which overlap with services provided by the City
or other Social Agencies unless such services can be provided more efficiently
and effectively by BPC. BPC shall submit an annual report to the City outlining
18 the services provided to the City during the preceding year.
Liabilities. The City shall not exercise control of the process, means, or
procedures used in providing services hereunder, shall provide no directive to,
and shall not interfere with BPC or its employees or volunteers in the
performance of the services required by this contract. BPC volunteers and
employees shall not be considered employees of the City and shall be under the
direct control of BPC. BPC agrees to indemnify the City and hold the City
harmless from any liability, claim, demand or action of any kind, including legal
expenses, arising out of BPC activities, and BPC shall carry a policy of
comprehensive general liability insurance, including contractual liability
insurance, in an amount approved by the City to , ever this agreement. BPC shall
provide certificates of insurance to the City wit[, tie signing of this agreement.
It is understood that this insurance requirement does rot constitute all of the
insurance that may be necessar
y.
Duration. The services provided by BPC hereunder shall commence on the lst day
of January, 1990, and continue until December 31, 1990. It is understood between
the parties that BPC intends to continue to provide similar services after
expiration of this contract, as a volunteer organization. Nothing in this
contract shall be construed to mean that the City shall renew this contract in
the event that BPC continues to provide such services to the residents of the
City of Brooklyn Center after expiration of this contract.
Payment. The City agrees to pay the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars for
the services provided hereunder, for the term of the contract. The sum of $5,000
shall be the total obligation of the City under this contract and shall be
payable to BPC as follows: $2,500 on April 9, 1990, and $2,500 on July 23, 1990,
in order to provide the services required hereunder. In the event that BPC fails
to provide the services hereunder, discontinues its operation, or otherwise
breaches the contract in any material way, BPC shall refund to the City the
amount determined by dividing the number of days remaining under this contract by
365 days and expressing the quotient in percentum and then multiplying the said
percentum times the total contract price. In the event the quality of services
required by this contract is not acceptable to the City, this agreement may be
terminated.
Miscellaneous. In an effort to improve the quality of services provided by this
agreement, the City and BPC agree to exchange information and ideas, maintain
open communication, and respond to all disputes, misunderstandings, and
recommendations. The parties agree that this contract is not assignable and that
the contract shall become effective upon approval by the BPC Board of Directors
and the execution thereof by the President and Corporate Secretary, and upon the
approval by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center and execution thereof
by the Mayor and City Manager. The City shall be a corporate member of the BPC.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
first above written.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Mayor
City Manager
BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER, INC.
President
Corporate Secretary
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3 / LlD
Agenda Item Numbef
(DDDRIC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AWARDING COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CONTRACT
• :ttt *ttt�i ♦tttsts*�s�+ rte►* s +ss*s�►stt * *ssiittisrtiri��t,rf i,►t,t *tttit *s,►f * ►t *ttw titt *t *ms*s�
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
nirPCtor of Finance
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
I, together with the City's insurance agent and risk management consultant, have
completed negotiations with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT)
for the renewal of the City's comprehensive municipal property and casualty
insurance coverage for 1990. The annual premium, compared to the 1989 premium
is as follows:
1990 Less 1990 1989 Net
Gross Agent's Net Gross Percent
Coverage Premium Commission Premium Premium Increase Increase
-------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
Property $ 26,176 2,618 23,558 21,058 2,500 11.87%
Inland Marine 6,774 677 6,097 6,701 (604) -9.01%
General Liability 72,877 7,288 65,589 59,298 6,291 10.61%
Errors /Omissions Liability
(For Public Officials) 10,035 1,003 9,032 7,190 1,842 25.62%
Automobile Liability 29,551 2,955 26,596 32,734 (6,138) - 18.75%
Automobile Physical Damage 14,577 1,458 13,119 16,423 (3,304) - 20.12%
Crime (Money & Securities) 1,313 131 1,182 1,313 (131) -9.98%
-- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
Total Premium $ 161,303 16,130 145,173 144,717 456 0.32%
The 1990 premium is shown net (no commissions) because we entered into an agreement
with BHK &R Insurance Agency for 1990 agent services on a flat "fee for services"
basis rather then paying them a commission based on premium. The City will realize
a considerable saving on commissions this year because of that decision. I will
detail the amount of savings later in this memo.
The total premium for the comprehensive municipal casualty & property insurance
• coverage has increased less then 1% over 1989 premium. This despite the fact that
property values (primarily due to the reconstruction of the Earle Brown Heritage
Center) increased 51.7% and expenditures, which are used for rating liability
premium, increased by 14.1 %.
• REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FROM PAUL W. HOLMLUND CONTINUED
The City will save $14,250 in "
1990 due to the fee for service contract entered
into with BHK &R over what would have been paid through the commission system used
in previous years. The detail of the savings follows:
Commi-
T Annual ssion Commi-
Type of Insurance
Premium Rate ssion
------------------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
Comprehensive Municipal Casualty & Property $ 161,303 10.00% 16,130
Bonds 4,693 10.00% 469
Boiler and Machinery 2,162 16.00% 346
Liquor Liability 17,820 10.00% 1,782
Worker's Compensation 186,130 2.00% 3,723
-- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
$ 372,108 $ 22,450
Less "Fee For Service" Agreement 8,200
Amount Saved $ 14,250
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
--------------- - - - --
Staff recommends that the City accepts the negotiated insurance renewal and award
the contract for comprehensive municipal property and casualty insurance coverage
• to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) and designate Brandow
Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R) as the agent of record for said insurance
contract.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------
Adopt the attached resolution awarding comprehensive municipal property and
casualty insurance contract.
•
s
J
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AWARDING
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CONTRACT
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and the City's Insurance Agent have
negotiated an annual renewal premium for the City's comprehensive municipal
property and casualty insurance coverage for the period from January 1, 1990
to January 1, 1991 and it is as follows:
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) $145,173
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to accept the negotiated insurance renewal and award the contract
as stated; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom,
Inc. (BHK &R) Agency be designated as the agent of record for said insurance.
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
----------------- - - - - --
SUMMARY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE
-----------------------------
JANUARY 1, 1990 TO JANUARY 1, 1991
----------------------------------
(SICINST)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Type of Coverage: COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COVERAGE
Effective Dates: January 1, 1990 to January 1, 1991
Name of Insurance Company: League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT)
Self- Insured Program
Premiums Paid To: League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT)
Program Administered By: North Star Risk Services, Inc.
Agent: Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R)
Policy Number: CMC 10640
COVERAGE
Insured: City of Brooklyn Center, Economic Development Authority (EDA), Housing
- - - - - -- and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); and while acting within their duties as
such - (1) a member of the City Council, (2) a member of a City board,
commission, or committee, (3) an elected or appointed official of the
City, (4) an employee of the City, (5) a volunteer person or organization
while acting of behalf of the City, (6) and other authorized person or
agent of the City while acting on behalf of the City, but excluding
independent contractors. (The "City" includes the EDA and HRA.)
Property: "ALL RISK" - $21,986,000 Blanket real and personal property - subject
-- - - - - -- to $1,000 deductible /occurrence. $10,000 /aggregate. Agreed amount.
Blanket replacement cost or actual cash value per schedule submitted.
Inland Marine: "ALL RISK" Contractors' equipment. Limit: $872,558; Deductible
-- -- --- - - - - -- $1,000. Miscellaneous property. Limit: $121,000; Deductible
$250. Voting equipment. Limit: $65,000; Deductible $250.
Loss of Earnings: $450,000 on Liquor and Public Utilities Operations.
--------------- -
Crime: Broad form Money and Securities. $250 deductible. Location and Limits:
- - - -- Humboldt Liquor $15,000; Boulevard Liquor $15,000; Northbrook Liquor
$15,000; City Hall $5,000; Community Center $10,000.
Liability: $600,000 each occurrence /$600,000 aggregate. Comprehensive general
--- - - - - -- liability. Independent Contractors. Completed Operations and Products
Contractual. Special Extended Liability Endorsements. Medical
payments. Personal Injury - full coverage /Personal Injury - Employees
Exclusion deleted. Host Liquor. Employees as additional insureds.
Public Officials Personal Liability: Limit: $600,000 per occurrence. Deductible:
-------- --------- --- -------- - - - - - -- $ 5,000. Claims made basis.
Automobile Property: Physical damage to include Comprehensive coverage and collision
-
coverage. Actual cash value or cost of repair, whichever
is less. Deductibles: Mischief or vandalism $250; Comprehensive
$250; Collision $500.
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COVERAGE CONTINUED
Estimated Annual Premium: Type Premium
------------------ - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- --- - - - - --
General Liability $ 65,589
Public Officials 9,032
Property 23,558
Crime 1,182
Inland Marine 6,097
Automobile Liability 26,596
Automobile Physical Damage 13,119
$ 145,173
(SICWC)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Type of Coverage: WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE
Effective Dates: January 1, 1990 to January 1, 1991
Name of Insurance Company: League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT)
Self- Insured Workers' Compensation Program
Premiums Paid To: League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT)
Program Administered By: Employee Benefit Administration (EBA)
Agent: Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R)
Policy Number: 02- 000139 -9
COVERAGE
Statutory Coverage for Elected Officials and Employees.
------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Annual Premium: $186,130
------------------------
(SICBOIL)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Type of Coverage: BOILER AND MACHINERY
Effective Dates: January 1, 1990 to January 1, 1991
Name of Insurance Company: The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.
Premiums Paid To: Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R)
Program Administered By: BHK &R
Agent: BHK &R
Policy Number: MN- 8330497 -09
COVERAGE
Limit: $3,000,000 per accident.
Repair or Replacement: Included
--------------- - - - - --
Objects: Broad Coverage. Any boiler, fired vessel or electric steam generator
- - - - - -- and accessory equipment. Deductible is $1,000.
Estimated Annual Premium: $2,162
------------------------
' (SICLIQLl)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Type of Coverage: LIQUOR LIABILITY, ALL MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES
Effective Dates: January 1, 1990 to January 1, 1991
Name of Insurance Company: Transcontinental Insurance Company
Premiums Paid To: Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R)
Program Administered By: John H. Crowther, Inc. (Producer)
Agent: BHK &R
Policy Numbers: LLP 2835881 Humboldt Liquor (Store No. 1)
LLP 2835882 Boulevard Liquor (Store No. 2)
LLP 2835880 Northbrook Liquor (Store No. 3)
COVERAGE
Limits of Liability: Bodily Injury - $1,000,000 each common cause
-- --- --- -- -- - - - - -- Bodily Injury - $1,000,000 each person
Property Damage - $1,000,000 each common cause
Loss of Means of Support - $1,000,000 each common cause
$1,000,000 Aggregate
Estimated Annual Premium: Humboldt Liquor (Store No. 1) $ 6,480
--------- --------- - - - - -- Boulevard Liquor (Store No. 2) 5,670
Northbrook Liquor (Store No. 3) 5,670
Total Estimated Annual Premium $ 17,820
Premium Basis
------- - - - - --
Premium is $0.81 per $100.00 of Sales.
Humboldt Liquor (Store No. 1) $ 800,000 Estimated Sales
Boulevard Liquor (Store No. 2) $ 700,000 Estimated Sales
Northbrook Liquor (Store No. 3) $ 700,000 Estimated Sales
Total $2,200,000 Estimated Sales
(SICBOND)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Type of Coverage: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BLANKET BOND
Effective Dates: January 1, 1986 to Until Cancelled
Name of Insurance Company: United Fire & Casualty Company
Premiums Paid To: North Star Services, Inc.
Program Administered By: North Star Services, Inc.
Agent: Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R)
Bond Number: 51 -59991
COVERAGE
Coverage: Faithful Performance Blanket Position Bond Coverage. This coverage
-- -- - - -- is for "Loss caused to the insured through the failure of any of the
employees, acting alone or in collusion with others, to perform
faithfully his duties or to account properly for all monies and property
received by virtue of his position or employment during the Bond Period."
Limit of Liability: $100,000; $200,000 Treasurer & Deputy Treasurer
------------------
Estimated Annual Premium: $3,840
------------------------
(SICDFC)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Type of Coverage: DEPOSITORS FORGERY COVERAGE
Effective Dates: January 1, 1986 to Until Cancelled
Name of Insurance Company: United Fire & Casualty Company
Premiums Paid To: North Star Risk Services, Inc.
Program Administered By: North Star Risk Services, Inc.
Agent: Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R)
Policy Number: 51 -59992
COVERAGE
Coverage: Depositors' Forgery Coverage.
Limit of Liability: $100,000
Estimated Annual Premium: $853
------------------------
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT
FROM JUNE 14 THROUGH JUNE 24
WHEREAS, the purpose of Earle Brown Days is to promote
the City of Brooklyn Center, i
y is eo le and amenities; p p s, and
WHEREAS, residents, the City community civic groups,
and businesses participate in the annual civic celebration to
demonstrate the vitality of the City of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, in order for Earle Brown Days, Inc. to
schedule certain events requiring City- issued administrative land
use permits, it is necessary for Earle Brown Days to be declared
a civic event.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that Earle Brown Days are declared a
civic event from June 14, 1990, through June 24, 1990.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 12th
of March , 1990 at 7.30 p .m. at the City Hall,
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 of the
Y P
City P
Ordinance to add trespass.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please contact the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to
make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY
ORDINANCES RELATING TO TRESPASS
The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended as
follows:
Section 19 -216 TRESPASS
Subdivision 1. DEFINITIONS
a. The term "store" shall mean a retail business including a restaurant
store, motel, or office where professional services are rendered
which is open to the public, including any shopping area, office
building shopping center or shopping mall
b. The term "storekeeper" shall mean the owner, operator or agent
of any retain business, office building, shopping area shopping
center or shopping mall, including an authorized security or police
officer.
c. The term "common area" shall mean any privately owned parking
lot, restroom facility, walkway, seating area hallway, atrium or
other area designated or used by the genera l public in areas such
as stores or shopping areas.
ORDINANCE NO.
d. The term "shopping area" shall mean any enclosed or open indoor
or outdoor facility consisting of a group of stores or offices open
to the public
Subdivision 2. PROHIBITION.
- a. No person shall enter or remain in any store or common area of
any shopping area after being ordered to leave by the storekeeper.
b. No person who has received a written notice in substantial
conformity to the requirements of subdivision 3 Shall enter in or
remain upon the store covered by the notice without written
permission of the storekeeper during the period stated in the
notice, which period shall not be in excess of one year from the
date of issuance. Notice may be by personal service or certified
mail.
Subdivision 3. NOTICE AND ORDER
a. A storekeeper may issue a notice in writing to a person whom the
storekeeper has reasonable cause to believe has committed an act
prohibited by the criminal laws of this state the United States or
an ordinance of this city in the store common area or shopping
area where the store is located. Such notice shall be served
immediately or within a reasonable time after the offense is
believed to have occurred
b. A notice and order shall substantially conform to the following:
NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT
NOTICE AND ORDER
TO: Name: D.O.B.
Address:
City:
State: ZIP:
ORDINANCE NO.
You are hereby advised to leave and not return to the following_ premises
for a period effective immediately and expiring
You are further advised that violation of this Notice and Order could
subject you to criminal prosecution under Brooklyn Center City Code,
Subsection 19 -216, Subdivision 2
Date Issued: Time:
Name of Company:
Authorized Signature:
Witnesses:
Witnesses should sin only if personally observing service of a copy - of
this Notice to the above -named individual.
Subdivision 4. PENALTIES. A violation of this ordinance shall be
punished as a petty misdemeanor unless the violation is accompanied by force
or violence or the threat thereof, or the person has previously violated this
subsection within the preceding twelve (12) months, in which case the violation
shall be a misdemeanor.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and
upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of - , 1990.
_
Mayor
ORDINANCE NO.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
§ 385.320
MINNEAPOLIS CODE`
(c) Permission required for reentry. No person, having been
ordered by a school official to leave a public school and having
left said premises, shall re -enter said public school without the
written permission of the school principal or the school official
who gave the order to leave the public school.
(d) Operation of vehicles. No person shall operate or be in ac-
tual physical control of any motor vehicle in or upon any public
school premises, except for the purpose of using designated park-
ing areas for parking in connection with a school or school sanc-
tioned function. The parking areas shall be as designated and
appropriately marked by the principal of each school. (Code 1960,
As Amend., §§ 883.010- 883.040; Ord. of 7- 27 -73, § 1)
385.325. Trespassing on private property used for retail sales.
(a) Definitions.
(1) "Store" shall mean any retail sales business (including
but not limited to restaurants), and offices where profes-
sional services of any kind are rendered, operating on pri-
vate property open to the public including any shopping
mall.
(2) "Shopkeeper" shall mean the operator or agent of any
retail sales business; or the owner or agent of any shop-
ping mall.
(3) "Common areas" shall mean any privately owned parking
lots, restroom facilities, or any other areas normally used
by the general public in such shopping mall.
(4) "Shopping mall" shall mean any enclosed or open indoor
or outdoor shopping facility consisting of contiguous stores
or offices open to the public providing retail sales, profes-
sional services or restaurant facilities.
(b) Prohibited,
(1) No person shall trespass in or on any store or common area
of any shopping mall by remaining on the premises after
being ordered to leave by a shopkeeper, property owner or
their agent,'who has reasonable cause to believe such per -
i
2868 Supp. No. 17, 12 -87�
Naomi
I
§ 385.330
OFFENSES — MISCELLANEOUS
son has committed an act or acts prohibited by the crimi-
nal code of this state or city. Such person shall also receive
the order to leave in a written form substantially in con-
formance with the requirements of this chapter.
(2) No person who has been ordered to leave and has received
the written notice required by this chapter, shall reenter
the store or common area of any shopping mall without the
written permission of the person or agent providing the
original notice, for a period of up to ninety (90) days from
the date of the written notice. '
(c) Penalty.
(1) A violation of subsection (b) or (c) shall be punished as a
petty misdemeanor. A subsequent violation of subsection
(b) or (c) within a twelve -month period shall be a misde-
meanor. (87 -Or -198, § 1, 10- 23 -87)
''?'\'` 385.330. Advertising of gasoline. (a) Definitions. Whenever
used in this section, the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Advertise." The offering for sale or selling to the general
public, by advertisement, whether oral, written, printed or
visual, or in any manner whatsoever, of gasoline.
(2) "Premium gasoline." Any gasoline having not less than a
research octane value of 97.0 as determined by test proce-
dure D- 908 -56 of the American Society for Testing Materials.
(3) "Regular gasoline." Any gasoline having not less than a
research octane value of 88.0 as determined by test proce-
dure D- 908 -56 of the American Society for Testing Materials.
(b) Misrepresenting as premium. No person shall adver-
tise for sale or sell to the public, any gasoline as premium or
Supp. No. 17, 12 -87 2868.1
}
I
I
609.60 CRIMINAL
CODE OF 196 I I
3 10220 1022
(6) Without authorization of the adjutant general enters or is present upon the 609.61 [Repealer
Camp Ripley military reservation in an area posted by order of the adjutant general
as restricted for weapon firing or other hazardous military activity. 609.611 DEFRAU
Histor 963 c 753 art 1 s 609.60; 1971 c 23 s 61 1977 4 Whoever with
' c 29 s 63 1
9
'
82c408s1
1984 c 6 ceals an prop r
28 '
art YP P Y
11
19
86
c 444
is at the time incur;
609.605 TRESPASSES AND OTHER ACTS. (a) May be se.
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. Whoever intentionally does any of the following ayment of fine of 1
is guilty of a misdemeanor: g $20,000; or
(b) Maybe sen.
(1) smokes in a building, area, or common carrier in which "no smoking" notices of fine of not more t
have been prominently posted, or when requested not to by the operator of the common (c) Proof that t
carrier; or
by reason of the fire
(2) trespasses or permits animals under the actor's control to trespass upon a the insurer.
fl railroad track; or
(3) permits domestic animals or fowls under the actor's control to go upon the History: 1976 c
lands of another within a city; or 609.615 DEFEATI
(4) interferes unlawfully with any monument, sign, or pointer erected or marked Whoever remo
to designate a point of a boundary, line or a political subdivision, or of a tract of land; mechanic's lien, or
or
without the consent
y (5) trespasses upon the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to (1) If the value
depart therefrom on demand of the lawful possessor thereof, or not more than 90 d
(6) occupies or enters the dwelling of another, without claim of right or consent (2) If the value
of the owner or the consent of one who has the right to give consent, except in an for not more than fi
a� emergency situation. As used in this clause, "dwelling" means the building or part of History: 1963 c
F the building used by an individual as a place of residence on either a full -time or a
part-time basis. The dwelling may be part of a multidwelling or multipurpose building, 3s 11
or a manufactured home as defined in section 168.011, subdivision 8; or 609.62 DEFEATI"
i.
i (7) enters the premises of another with intent to take or injure any fruit, fruit trees, Subdivision 1.
or vegetables growing thereon without the permission of the owner or occupant; or in property which s.
(8) refuses the request of the operator of a public conveyance to either a th
required fare or leave the conveyance; or P Y Subd. 2. Acts
following may be ser
(9) takes any animal on a public conveyance without the consent of the operator, of a fine of n m or
P of
or ,
(10) without the permission of the owner, tampers with or gets into or upon r. (1) Conceals, re
s
that another has a s
motor vehicle as defined in section 609.55, subdivision 1, or rides in or upon such ' (2) Being an oh
motor vehicle knowing it was taken and is being driven by another without th. the same to an obliz
permission of the owner; or History: 1963 c
(11) enters or is found upon the premises of a public or private cemetery without
I authorization during hours the cemetery is posted as closed to the public; or
609.621 PROOF OI
(12) without authorization of the adjutant general enters or is present upon the PROPERTY.
Camp Ripley military reservation; or
Subdivision 1.
(13) returns to the property of another with the intent to harass, abuse, or threaten, there is a default in
another, after being told to leave the property and not to return if the actor has no claim obligor has failed <
of right to the property and no consent of one with authority to consent. considered sufficien
Subd. 2. Gross misdemeanor. Whoever trespasses upon the grounds of a facility concealed, or dispos
providing ding emergency shelter services for battered women, as defined under section Subd. 2. In am
31
61IA., subdivision 3, or of a facility g
j y providin transitional housing for batterec description of the sec
women and their children, without claim of right or consent of one who has right to was duly mortgaged
give consent, and refuses to depart from the grounds of the facility on demand of one giving the date there
who has right to give consent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
History: 1963 c
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.605; 1971 c 23 s 62; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7. 197 6c 2 5 1
s1;19
8 c 512 s 1
1981 c365s9, 1982c4
307 s 3 08 s 2; 1985 c 159 s 2; 1986 c 444; 1987
I
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/12/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 27 -104 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES
AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF ADVERTISEMENTS, BUILDINGS OR
STRUCTURES ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, STREETS OR ALLEYS
DEPT. APPROVA
S KNAPP IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
On 2/12/90 the City Council conducted a first reading of the attached ordinance
and requested City staff to submit additional information regarding the need for
• the ordinance at the second reading /public hearing which is scheduled for the
3/12/90 Council meeting.
Attached hereto is a copy of a 2/28/90 memo from City Attorney LeFevere which
explains the need for the ordinance.
Also attached is a copy of a 3/07/90 memo from City Prosecutor Clelland in which
he also comments regarding the need for the proposed ordinance.
City Council Action Required
• conduct second reading /public hearing
• discussion
• adoption (or rejection) of proposed ordinance
OR: adopt motion to continue consideration of the ordinance, and
direct staff to prepare (specified) amendments if amendment(s) are
desired.
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 OF 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 provisions of said Section 160 27 Subd 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 highway, 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.)
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
"torneys at Law
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
1 0 ROBERT A. ALSOP (612) 337 - 9300 DAVID J. KENNEDY
PAL !1, D. BAF.RTSCHI Facsimile 1612) 337 - 9316 JOHN R. LARSON
RONALD H. B ATTY WELLINGTON H. LAW
MARY.1. BRF.NDEN JULIE A. LAWLER
STEPHEN J. BCBC1, CHARLES L. LEFEVERE
ROBERT C. CARLSON JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR.
CHRISTINE M. CHALE ROBERT J. LINDALL
ROBERT L. DAVIDSON WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL LAURA K. MOLLET
JOHN B. DEAN
DANIEL R. NELSON
ROBERT J. OBBIN BARBARA L. PORTWOOD
MARY G. DOB BINS 337 -9215
JEFFREY ENG MARV FRANCES SKALA
STEFANIE N. GALEY JAMES M. STROMMEN
DAVID L. GRAVEN STEVEN M. TALLEN
CORRINE A. HEINE JAMES J. THOMSON, JR.
JOHN G. HOESCHLER LARRY M. WERTHEIM
JAMES S. HOLMES BONNIE L. WILKINS
February 28, 1990
Mr. Sy Knapp
Public Works Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, NIN 55430
Re: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Obstructions in Public Right-of-Way
Dear Sy:
You have asked for my general comments on the proposed amendment to City Code
Section 27 -104.
Under state law (Minnesota Statutes Section 160.27, Subd. 5) it is a misdemeanor to
do any of the follows g:
(1) Obstruct any highway or deposit snow or ice thereon;
(2) Plow or perform any other detrimental operation within
the road right -of -way except in the preparation of the land
for planting permanent vegetative cover;
(3) Erect a fence on the right -of -way of a trunk highway,
county state -aid highway, county highway or town road,
except to erect a lane fence to the ends of a livestock
pass;
p �
(4) Dig any holes in any highway; except to locate markers
placed to identify sectional corner positions and private
boundary corners;
(5) Remove any earth, gravel or rock from any highway;
Mr. Sy Knapp
February 28, 1990
Page 2
(6) Obstruct any ditch draining any highway or drain any
noisome materials into any ditch;
(7) Place or maintain any building or structure within the
limits of any highway;
(8) Place or maintain any advertisement within the limits of
any highway;
(9) Paint, print, place, or affix any advertisement or any
object within the limits of any highway;
(10) Deface, mar, damage, or tamper with any structure, work,
material, equipment, tools, signs, markers, signals, paving,
guardrails, drains, or any other highway appurtenance on or
along any highway;
(11) Remove, injure, displace, or destroy right -of -way markers,
or reference or witness monuments, or markers placed to
preserve section or quarter section corners;
(12) Improperly place or fail to place warning signs and detour
signs as provided by law;
(13) Drive over, through, or around any barricade, fence, or
obstruction erected for the purpose of preventing traffic
from passing over a portion of a highway closed to public
travel or to remove, deface, or damage any such barricade,
fence, or obstruction.
Also under state law ( Minnesota Statutes § 160.27, Subd. 7) the Commissioner of
Transportation has the authority to "take down, remove, or destroy any
advertisement, building or structure in or upon any highway in violation of this
section."
Under the existing City Code, Section 27 -104, it is also a misdemeanor to do any of
the things listed above, because the City Code incorporates the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes S 160.27, Subd. 5. However, the City Code does not currently
incorporate Subd. 7 of that section which gives the Commissioner of Transportation
the authority to remove obstructions. Therefore, it is unlawful to place a structure
on the right -of -way, but it is not clear that the City has the authority to remove it.
This means, for example, that the City may prosecute the placement of a structure
in the right -of -way as a misdemeanor, or it may seek an order of the court, in a
civil case, requiring the owner to remove the structure. Both of these options have
advantages and disadvantages. Generally, misdemeanor prosecution is faster, less
expensive and usually results in prompt compliance with the ordinance by the
Mr. Sy Knapp
February 28, 1990
Page 3
defendant. However, in misdemeanor cases, the burden of proof is higher, the
judge may not give the case the attention it deserves, and even a conviction may
simply mean that a fine is imposed and not that the obstruction will be removed.
A civil action, on the other hand, is more likely to result in a court order
compelling the removal of the obstructions, but is more costly and time consuming.
Neither of these two options necessarily results in the prompt removal of
structures in the right -of -way. Obviously, in many cases, the City can wait for the
outcome of a criminal or civil trial. However, there are cases in which more
prompt action is required. Your example of a landowner stringing cable three feet
off of the ground across a corner of right -of -way used by snowmobilers is a good
one.
The purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment is not to change the law
prohibiting obstruction of the right -of -way. No acts that were legal bef ore are
made illegal by the ordinance amendment. The only change to the current
ordinance is that the city manager is given the authority to remove structures
which are already illegal under the City Code, just as the Commissioner of
Transportation has the authority to remove structures on state highway right -of-
way.
If you have any further questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:rsr
BR291 -010
C AR SO'N NN C LE LL_A.-N
ATTO$Nr-YS kT I,Aw
BROO KDAIE CORPORATE CENTER
SUITE 305
0300 Skf LE CREEK PARKWAY
Wl"'A V M G. - CARSON CLELLAND MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5430 TEI.FPMONE
WI{. �iA
MARGARET C. HEDPER
7 March 1990 (612) 561 2600
STEVEN C. "r FAX
(6121 561•i943
Mr. SV Knapp
Director of Public Works
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: Proposed Amendment to Chapter 27 Traffic ordinances
Dear Sy:
I have had an opportunity to review the proposed amendment
to Section 27.104 dealing with obstruction of or damage to city
streets and roads and to speak at some length with Charlie
LeFevere. I have some comments about the present proposed
amendment and the purposes it is designed to accomplish and some
changes you may wish to consider.
As I understand the genesis of this problem, a home owner
put pasts adjacent to a road or a street corner to prohibit
vehicles from driving over the corner of his property. The City
was unsuccessful in prosecuting the individual and there was some
question as to whether the City Manager had the right to cause
the posts to be removed. Rather than pass a comprehensive
ordinance on the subject, I understand that Charlie LeFevere was
asked to insure that the power to remove obstructions, now vested
in the Commissioner of Transportation for state roads, be
unequivocally vested in the City Manger with respect to city
streets and roads.
I find that the proposed ordinance amendment does not impair
the City's ability to prosecute violators. Even without Section
27.104, city prosecution of offenders for violating Minnesota
Statutes Section 160.27 Subdivion 5 could always be maintained
because city prosecutors have jurisdiction over misdemeanors. It
is perfectly proper to bring a misdemeanor charge against someone
for obstructing a roadway in violation of Minnesota Statutes
Section 160.27 Subdivision 5 whether or not it is incorporated in
the city ordinances. At this time, city prosecution could
proceed either under State Statute or present Ordinance 27.104
which incorporates the provisions of Chapter 160 or could proceed
under the authority of both. Your new ordinance does not impair
criminal prosecution whatsoever.
Mr. Sy Knapp
page 2
7 March 1990
Charlie and I do have a concern as to whether this ordinance
will be comprehensive enough, however, to deal with most of the
violations which may be unique to urban areas. Charlie has
proposed the amendment to prohibit obstructions not only to
roadways but also the right -of -way to deal with those situations
where the shoulder or right -of -way of the road is impaired
although not the main - traveled portion itself. This is an
excellent idea since an obstruction along the shoulder of the
road might be as dangerous as an obstruction on the road itself
and the public is entitled to use not only the main portion of
the road but also shoulders or other areas in times of emergency.
I note that by incorporating Minnesota Statutes Section
160.27 Subdivision 5, we could prosecute any person erecting a
Tense, digging holes in the roadway, removing earth, gravel or
rock from the highway, obstructing a drainage ditch, maintaining
a building or structure within the limits of any highway, placing
signs or advertisement there or persons who deface guardrails,
signs or other markers along the highway. There is also a
general prohibition against obstructing any highway which the
ordinance expands to include any obstruction of nigh -of -ways of
any highway, street or alley in the city. However, it appeared
to me that situations may arise in Brooklyn Center where persons
may obstruct roads in a way that does not directly or clearly
fall within the terms of the ordinance. For example, if someone
were to plant a large hedge adjacent to the roadway it would not
constitute maintaining a building or structure, nor an
advertisement, nor a fence nor seem to otherwise come within the
prohibition of Subdivision 5 and yet it may pose a situation
where the City would wish to have remedial powers. Subdivision 1
of Section 150.27 Subdivision 5 makes it unlawful to "obstruct
any highway or deposit snow or ice thereon." This seems to be an
overall and broad prohibition against obstructing any city street
or highway but, curiously, the sentence goes on to then prohibit
the deposit of snow or ice thereon. it is a little awkward for
the same sentence to both prohibit obstruction of roads and to
further prohibit the deposit of snow or ice because it deals with
two distinct violations in the context of one sentence.
Statutes which impose criminal penalties are strictly
construed. That is during the interpretation of the statute, the
statute is read narrowly so to bring within the criminal statute
only that conduct which clearly violates it. Someone might argue
that the provision generally prohibiting the obstruction of
roads, which in contained in the same sentence speaking about
deposits of snow and ice might or should be limited to
obstructions by means of snow or ice. That is that the
legislature intended the word obstruction in this subdivision to
Mr. Sy Knapp
page 3
7 March 1990
mean obstructions by reason of snow or ice since it placed the
prohibition about obstruction in the same sentence with the
reference to snow or ice. This may seem like a far - fetched
interpretation but in fact given the strict construction of
statutes, I can see the argument being made and the obligation
for the court to at least seriously consider the argument.
It might be worthwhile to think about the most common causes
of obstructions to see if they fit within the prohibitions of
Subdivision 5 and whether the ordinance should be expanded to
include those situations unique to municipalities so that the
City would have broad enforcement powers. This would be a
departure from the initial intent of this ordinance but it seems
to me if the City is going to consider enforcement powers
regarding obstruction, it might well consider a comprehensive
ordinance to try and deal with the problem once and for all
rather than to pass this ordinance and then perhaps find that
there are a number of predictable situations which will arise and
which are not addressed by the ordinance.
Charlie and I also talked about the provisions dealing with
the power of the City Manager or his agent to summarily remove
obstructions. I think the language contained in the ordinance is
acceptable but it might be buttressed by words giving the City
Manager the immediate power to do so or unilateral power to do so
to make it clear that the City Manager has that authority without
need to resort to city council resolutions or to otherwise seek
approval from other entities. I know there could be concern that
a strongly worded ordinance might permit over- zealous enforcement
but I believe that if the code enforcement officers or police
officers are properly trained in the City's philosophy as to the
enforcement of the ordinance that all proper purposes will be
accomplished and yet the leeway traditionally given citizens can
be maintained.
Please give me a call when you have had a chance to review
the comments.
Sincerely,
CARSON AND CLELLAND
willi lland
WGC:lln
enclosures _
Cc: Chai lie Ler everE'.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date
Agenda Item Number C
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER
CITY ORDINANCES
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL
Signatur - title r James Lindsay, Chief of Pow' _
MANAGER'S IEW /RECOMMENDATION:
i A;�
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
. The Brooklyn Center liquor ordinance currently restricts ownership of a liquor license
to a single person or corporation. General Mills Restaurants, Inc, who currently hold
an on -sale intoxicating liquor license for the Red Lobster Restaurant, have made a
formal request to allow more than one owner. The attached letter expresses their
interest in building an Olive Garden Restaurant on James Circle.
When the city first went to split liquor, it allowed the city to license private on -sale
for restaurants, hotels and bowling alleys while retaining municipal off -sale. The laws
at the time limited the number of on -sale private licenses the city could issue to six
(6). The thinking at the time of limiting license holders in Brooklyn Center to one
was to avoid a particular individual or corporation from controlling the majority of
the licenses. Since that time, the law has changed and the city is now authorized to
issue eighteen (18) licenses. Apparently this number also may be changed as a few
cities have special legislation authorizing more than eighteen (18) licenses.
The city currently issues nine (9) on -sale liquor licenses a year. The highest issued
was eleven (11) licenses, but Yen Ching and Green Mill no longer retain a license.
With the number of eighteen (18) licenses, it does not appear likely that any
individual or corporation could dominate the restaurant business in Brooklyn Center.
The staff has reviewed General Mills Restaurants' request and believe it would be
• an asset to the city to have an Olive Garden Restaurant located in Brooklyn Center.
Additionally the attached ordinance creates a class f license which will be available
for use at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Authorization for this license has been
presented to the State Legislature in a special bill for their consideration. The bill
• also authorizes this license not to be counted in our eighteen (18) licenses authorized.
The staff reviewed the current liquor ordinance and has two housekeeping items
which were missed in the last review. One is the change in Sunday hours which was
changed in various places in the ordinance, but missed in this one paragraph. The
other is the elimination of the surety bond required for on -sale licenses. This had
been a requirement of the State, which has dropped the requirement of surety bonds
in most instances including liquor licenses, notary bonds, et cetera.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve the attached ordinance for a first reading.
•
General Mills Restaurants, Inc.
General Offices
6770 Lake Ellenor Drive
P.O. Box 593330
Orlando. FL 32859 -3330
(407) 851 -0370
February 27, 1990 FEDERAL EXPRESS
Chief Jim Lindsay
Chief of Police
Brooklyn Center Police Department
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: Proposed Olive Garden Restaurant
James Circle, east of Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center
Dear Chief Lindsay:
General Mills Restaurants, Inc. is desirous of building an Olive
Garden Italian Restaurant in Brooklyn Center. A prerequisite for
the development of our restaurants nts is the availability q of a liquor
license.
We have been advised of Brooklyn Center's ordinance prohibiting any
one owner from possessing more than one liquor license. The
purpose of this letter is to propose a change in the ordinance
which would allow us to introduce the Olive Garden Italian
Restaurant to your community.
We joined your community in 1982 with the Red Lobster Restaurant
located at 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard. As Red Lobster's sister
company, the Olive Garden Italian Restaurant also strives to be an
involved member in the community. The 200 Olive Garden restaurants
across the country support a variety of local organizations, with
programs designed to meet the needs of its particular community.
The Olive Garden is owned and operated by General Mills
Restaurants, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of General
Mills, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Our company has proven to
be financially successful and our restaurants are operated in a
professional manner and with a sincere appreciation of the laws of
the various jurisdictions in which we operate.
I would like to take this opportunity to outline what we believe to
be the benefits that would accrue to the Brooklyn Center area by
having an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant.
The Olive Garden is a full service, family- oriented restaurant
offering reasonably priced, good tasting Italian -style foods.
Every effort is made to serve the freshest foods in their natural
Red Lobster;: The Olive Garden.
Chief Jim Lindsay
February 27, 1990
Page 2
state, free of chemical additives, preservatives or colorings. We
especially pride ourselves on our fresh pasta, which is produced
daily on our premises.
Most of our lunch and dinner items include complimentary garlic
bread sticks and our colossal Olive Garden salad. Our wine list
offers a select grouping designed to compliment our Italian menu.
The full service lounge will provide a central location within the
unit for guests waiting to be served, but will not provide
entertainment or dancing.
We will employ approximately 90 -100 people. Employees who work
over 25 hours weekly are considered full time and are entitled to
full company benefits. This will result in excess of $500,000
payroll per year, obviously benefitting the local community.
Although alcoholic beverages sales represent a small portion of our
total sales, obtaining a license to sell alcoholic beverages is a
contingency for our building a restaurant in a particular
community. I spoke with Barbara Cox some time ago concerning this
request for an ordinance change. We are proceeding with our
0 request now as we have a fully executed real estate contract. We
have several weeks to obtain the necessary City approvals to
proceed with the contract. At your earliest convenience, please
advise us how to proceed in initiating action to gain City Council
approval on the proposed ordinance change. We would be pleased to
present additional facts and information to your City Council.
We strongly believe an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant in the
Brooklyn Center community would provide a positive environment, and
thus join the many fine establishments currently in business in
your area.
Should you have any questions or need additional information,
please feel free to call me at 1 800 -562 -7837, extension 5635.
Most sincerely,
GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANTS, INC.
( J
Sherri L. Hall
Legal Representative, Licensing
Enclosures
q
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day
of ,19 , at p.m. at City Hall, 6301
Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 11 of the city
ordinances.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 569 -3300 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE BROOKLYN
CENTER CITY ORDINANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 11 -702. LICENSE REQUIRED.
f. On -Sale Class F Liquor License' This license is available only to
the Earle Brown Heritage Center Convention Facility. This license
applies to the sale and dispensing of liquor to patrons attending
events at the center and shall not be valid for amateur athletic
events. This license allows for the sale and dispensing of liquor at
the convention center and bed and breakfast facilities located at
the Earle Brown Heritage Center.
Section 11 -703. NUMBER OF LICENSES ISSUED. The number of
"on -sale liquor" licenses issued by the City of Brooklyn Center shall be limited
to 18. The license for the Earle Brown Heritage Center shall not be counted
in the 18 license limit.
Section 11 -709. PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE.
[6. Who is directly or indirectly interested in any other establishment
in the City of Brooklyn Center to which an "on -sale liquor" or an
on -sale wine license has been issued under this ordinance.]
ORDINANCE NO.
[10. No person shall own an interest in more than one establishment
or business within Brooklyn Center for which an "on -sale liquor"
or an "on -sale wine" license has been granted. The term "interest"
as used in this section includes any pecuniary interest in the
ownership, operation, management, or profits of a retail liquor
establishment, but does not include bona fide loans; bona fide fixed
sum rental agreements; bona fide open accounts or other
obligations held with or without security arising out of the
ordinance and regular course of business of selling or leasing
merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such establishment; or an
interest of 10 percent or less in any corporation holding a license.
A person who received monies from time to time directly or
indirectly from a licensee, in the absence of a bona fide
consideration therefor and excluding bona fide gifts or donations,
shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in such retail license.
In determining "bona fide" the reasonable value of the goods or
things received as consideration for any payment by the licensee
and all other facts reasonably tending to prove or disprove the
existence of any purposeful scheme or arrangement to evade the
prohibitions of this section shall be considered.]
Section 11 -712. HOURS OF OPERATION.
Establishments to which "on -sale liquor" licenses have been issued for the
sale of intoxicating liquors may serve intoxicating liquor between the hours of
10 a.m. Sunday and [12 midnight on Sundays] 1 a.m. on Monday in conjunction
with the serving of food.
Section 11 -714. LIABILITY INSURANCE.
[Subdivision 6. "On -sale liquor" license holders, must provide a corporate
surety bond in the amount of at least $3,000 at application or renewal time.]
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and
upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
ORDINANCE NO.
Adopted this day of ,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3
Agenda hem Number 9 L
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING LICENSE FEES FOR CLASS E AND CLASS F ON-
SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title'- James Lindsay, Chief of Police _
MANAGER'S R IEW /RECOMMENDATION: M
R.,'
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
The attached resolution adopts a license fee schedule for the two new classes of on-
sale intoxicating liquor licenses. The Class E license pertains to the hotels that wish
to have a special liquor /food area for guests only for two hours per day, normally
known as the manager's hospitality hour. Because of the special restrictions placed
on this license, the staff has reviewed and believes the proposed fee of $2,500 is
appropriate. This is the amount we were considering at the time the ordinance
proposal was made.
The Class F license is the special license for the Earle Brown Heritage Center. This
license will be used for liquor service both at the convention center and the bed and
breakfast facility. The staff has reviewed this license and believes a yearly license fee
of $5,000 would be appropriate for this facility. Based on the facts that the license
would not be used on a daily basis by the convention center and the relatively small
number of people who would be ordering liquor at the bed and breakfast, staff
believes the proposed fee is justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council pass the resolution adopting the proposed fees for the Class E and
• Class F on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING LICENSE FEES FOR CLASS E AND
CLASS F ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 11 -702, subdivision 3
allows for Classes A through F of on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses; and
WHEREAS, no license fees have been previously established for Class
E and Class F on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that the following fees be established:
Class E On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License $2,500
Class F On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License $5,000
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.
t
� R
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
MARCH 1, 1990
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell
Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of
Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross.
Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson had indicated
that he would be absent and was excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 1 1990
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to
approve the minutes of the February 1, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 90001 (Duane Saari)
Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a request for approval of a variance to
subdivide by metes and bounds, redrawing the common property line
between 5113 Paul Drive and 6412 Scott Avenue North to eliminate an
encroachment of the Saari driveway on the neighboring lot. The
Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning
Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90001 attached).
Commissioner Sander arrived at 7:34 p.m.
Commissioner Holmes asked whether there was any problem with the
existing easement. The Secretary responded in the negative and
stated that the easement would continue to apply.
Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to
add. Mr. Saari responded in the negative.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90001)
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing
and asked whether anyone present wished to comment on the
application.
Commissioner Holmes asked who owned the redwood fence along the
3 -1 -90 1
' 8
south lot lines of the properties. Mr. Saari indicated that it was
the property owner to the south.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There being no other comments from those present, there was a
motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90001 (Duane Saari)
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
recommend approval of Application No. 90001, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The new legal descriptions and necessary deeds for
transfer of property shall be filed with the titles to
the property at the County.
Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander,
Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
D ISCUSSION ITEMS
a) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Uses Permitted in the C1, C2 and
I -1 Districts and Rezoning Application No. 89003
The Secretary then introduced a discussion item with the Planning
Commission regarding the City initiated rezoning under Application
No. 89003 and a companion zoning ordinance amendment which would
eliminate some commercial uses from the I -1 zone. The Secretary
explained that the City Attorney had had concerns regarding the
ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission in March
of 1989. He stated that the staff was also working on a PUD
ordinance at the time and that it was decided to hold off the
consideration on the amendment to the I -1 zone until the PUD
ordinance was in effect. The Secretary added that the PUD
ordinance is now effective and that it is, therefore, appropriate
to recommend consideration of the rezoning and ordinance amendment.
He stated that it was appropriate at this time to reaffirm the
actions on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning which
were taken under Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 and 89 -2.
The Secretary then reviewed the background of the rezoning
application which had been initiated by the City. He stated that
one of the reasons the rezoning was initiated was because the owner
of some of the industrial land north of the Freeway, Richardson and
Sons, began marketing some of their parcels for sale about two
years ago and that some of the parties who were interested in those
parcels would have made use of them for convenience food
restaurants and budget hotels. The Secretary stated that staff did
not believe those sorts of uses were appropriate in the I -1 zone,
especially in the area north of Freeway Boulevard and were not in
3 -1 -90 2
keeping with the conceptual plans put forth by the owner over the
years. The Secretary went on to explain that the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to the I -1 district was amended twice in the past to
allow more commercial uses by special use permit in the I -1 zone.
He stated that along with those uses, there were standards added to
the I -1 zone which were to apply to those commercial uses, namely,
that the uses would be of comparable intensity and compatible with
existing I -1 uses and other uses allowed in the I -1 zone generally.
He explained that the City, at the time it adopted these
ordinances, thought it had control over development through its
ability to deny a special use permit. He pointed out, however,
that recent history of legal cases showed that cities have very
little ability to deny a special use permit. He stated that the
burden of proof has fallen on the City rather than on the
developer. Because of this, staff became concerned when some
commercial uses were proposed for the I -1 zone a year and a half
ago. Therefore, staff initiated the rezoning application and an
ordinance amendment to eliminate some commercial uses from the I -1
zone. The Secretary then showed the Commission a transparency of
the areas that were affected by the rezoning application, including
the Holiday Inn and the La Casita restaurant and parcels between
the freeway and Freeway Boulevard east of Shingle Creek Parkway.
He added that there were parcels south of the freeway and east of
Shingle Creek Parkway which would also be included in the rezoning.
He pointed out that the uses in this area are generally commercial
and that none of them would become nonconforming by being rezoned
to C2.
The Secretary then explained the action that had been taken in
March of 1989 to recommend a Comprehensive Plan amendment along
with an ordinance amendment. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their
review and comment and that the Met Council had no objection to the
Plan amendment.
The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission the contents of a
staff memo on the draft ordinance amendment before the Planning
Commission. (See memorandum attached). The Secretary explained
that the previous ordinance amendment had called for allowing
certain single tenant retailers selling large or expensive items to
be allowed by special use permit. He stated that the City Attorney
had expressed reservations about limiting retail establishments to
only single tenant establishments and those selling certain
products. He stated that the land use impacts could really not be
differentiated from other types of establishments. The Secretary
pointed out that the draft ordinance amendment would eliminate
retail sales as a principal use in the I -1 zone, but that retail
sales as an accessory use to a manufacturing, wholesaling, or
warehousing type use would still be allowed by special use permit.
He stated that the Schmitt Music operation would still be
considered a conforming use since its retail operation is more of
an incidental part of the use of the building rather than the
3 -1 -90 3
principal use. He then reviewed with the Commission uses to be
eliminated from the I -1 zone and others to be added by special use
permit.
Commissioner Bernards asked about projected traffic impact as a
result of the ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that staff
do not envision more traffic than was projected by the 1985 Short -
Elliott (SEH) Traffic Study of the Industrial Park and the
Brookdale area. He stated that the study had projected peak hour
traffic that would result from maximum development of this area.
He stated that there may have to be some modifications to certain
intersections if the traffic levels increase, but that these
modifications were foreseen by the traffic study. The Planner
indicated that the draft ordinance amendment would make the I -1
zone more of an employment zone rather than a zone open for
commerce. He stated that the likely effect of this restriction
would be to perhaps increase the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour
traffic along Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Freeway Boulevard,
but that it would reduce the 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. traffic in that area
from what it might otherwise be.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether any existing uses in the
Industrial Park would become nonconforming as a result of the
ordinance amendment. The Secretary responded in the negative.
The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it reaffirm the
actions to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning and also
to act on the draft ordinance amendment. He added that there would
be no nonconforming uses in the area to be rezoned to C2.
ACTION REAFFIRMING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
APPLICATION NO. 89003 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 89 -1 AND
89 -2)
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to
reaffirm the Planning Commission's action on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 and
also to reaffirm the rezoning recommendation contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -2. Voting in favor: Chairperson
Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING USES PERMITTED IN
THE Cl, C2 AND I -1 ZONING DISTRICTS
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to
recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding uses
permitted in the C1, C2 and I -1 zoning districts, especially uses
allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zone. (See draft
ordinance attached). Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
3 -1 -90 4
The Secretary indicated that he would try to bring Donn Wiski to
the Planning Commission's next meeting on March 15 to discuss the
Group Home Study. Commissioner Mann also informed the Commission
that there would be a grand opening of the Earle Brown Heritage
Center on April 20, 22 and 25.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning
Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Chairperson
3 -1 -90 5
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Planning Commission Application No. 90001 - Duane Saari
DEPARTMENT AP L:
Signature - title Di rector o Planning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Planning Commission Application No. 90001 is a request for variance
approval to allow a subdivision by metes and bounds (rather than by
formal plat) in order to relocate the common property line between
• 5113 Paul Drive and 6412 Scott Avenue North.
This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its
March 1, 1990 meeting. Minutes and information sheet from that
meeting are attached.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance.
0
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSSION
OF THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE
COUN
HENNEPIN AND THE
STATE OF
MINNESOTA
MARCH 1, 1990
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL
Il i CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace B ere a Director of
Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also presen
I Ainas, Kri a
an Gary Shallcross.
� Planning and Inspection Ronald W arren d indicated
Chairperson Malecki noted that Commi nd P1
ssioner Johnson had
that he would be absent and was excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 1 1990
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commission Mann to Pl annin g Commission
approve the minutes of the February 1, 1990
meeting as submitted. Voting alecki,
g in favor: Chairperson erson
Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
` APPL ICATION NO 90001 (Duane Saari)
Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a reque st forapproval of a variance to o property line
I redrawing p Y
etes and bounds, g the common pr
subdivide by m eliminate an
� Nor
to el
Drive and 6412 Scott
Avenue
b etween 5113 Paul The
b lot. encroachment of the Saari driveway on the neighboring 1
Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning
Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90001 attached).
Commissioner Sander arrived at 7:34 p.m.
Commissioner Holmes asked whether there was any problem with the
existing easement. The Secretary responded in the negative and
stated that the easement would continue to apply.
Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to
add. Mr. Saari responded in the negative.
PUBLI HEARING (Application No. 90001)_ p ublic hearing
Chairperson Malecki then opened the m eeting for a p
and asked whether anyone present wished to comment on the
application.
Commissioner Holmes asked who owned the redwood fence along the
3 -1 -90 1
f
south lot lines of the properties. Mr. Saari indicated that it was
the property owner to the south.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There being no other comments from those present, there was a
motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90001 (Duane Saari)
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
recommend approval of Application No. 90001, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The new legal descriptions and necessary deeds for
transfer of property shall be filed with the titles to
the property at the County.
Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander,
Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Uses Permitted in the C1, C2 and
I -1 Districts and Rezoning Application No. 89003
The Secretary then introduced a discussion item with the Planning
Commission regarding the City initiated rezoning under Application
No. 89003 and a companion zoning ordinance amendment which would
eliminate some commercial uses from the I -1 zone. The Secretary
explained that the City Attorney had had concerns regarding the
ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission in March
Of 1989. He stated that the staff was also working on a PUD
ordinance at the time and that it was decided to hold off the
consideration on the amendment to the I -1 zone until the PUD
ordinance was in effect. The Secretary added that the PUD
ordinance is now effective and that it is, therefore, appropriate
to recommend consideration of the rezoning and ordinance amendment.
He stated that it was appropriate at this time to reaffirm the
actions on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning which
were taken under Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 and 89 -2.
The Secretary then reviewed the background of the rezoning
application which had been initiated by the City. He stated that
one of the reasons the rezoning was initiated was because the owner
of some of the industrial land north of the Freeway, Richardson and
Sons, began marketing some of their parcels for sale about two
years ago and that some of the parties who were interested in those
parcels would have made use of them for convenience food
restaurants and budget hotels. The Secretary stated that staff did
not believe those sorts of uses were appropriate in the I -1 zone,
especially in the area north of Freeway Boulevard and were not in
3 -1 -90 2
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90001
Applicant: Duane Saari
Location: 5113 Paul Drive, 6412 Scott Avenue North
Request: Variance (Subdivision by metes and bounds)
The applicant requests variance approval to allow a subdivision by
metes and bounds (rather than by formal plat) in order to relocate
the common property line between 5113 Paul Drive and 6412 Scott
Avenue North. The purpose of the subdivision is simply to redraw
the boundary line to be consistent with physical realities (such as
the Saaris' driveway). It is not to create a separate buildable
lot. Under the Subdivision Ordinance, subdivisions are to be
performed by plat or registered land survey. The proposal to
subdivide by metes and bounds requires a variance to be granted
from the Subdivision Ordinance. Generally, such variances are
granted as long as the following conditions apply:
1) No new buildable lots are created.
2) The underlying lots are platted.
3) Setbacks and lot area requirements will still be met
after the property line is redrawn.
All three of these conditions are met in this case. No buildable
lots are created. The underlying lots are platted. The resulting
lot areas will be 11,121 sq. ft. for the Rooney property (the
corner lot at 6412 Scott Avenue North) and 9,900 sq. ft. for the
Saari property (5113 Paul Drive, an interior lot) . City ordinances
require 10,500 sq. ft. for a corner lot and 9,500 sq. ft. for an
interior lot. The new lot line will be directly north - south,
whereas the existing lot line runs at an angle and lies within the
Saaris' driveway, or rather the Saari driveway lies partially on
the Rooneys' property. The new property line will leave the
Saaris' garage 4.7' from the west lot line. The minimum required
by the Zoning Ordinance is 3 1 .
The proposed variance application appears to meet the City's policy
regarding subdivisions by metes and bounds. Approval is
recommended, subject to at least the following conditions:
1. The new legal descriptions and necessary deeds for
transfer of property shall be filed with the titles to
the property at the County.
3 -1 -90
City of Brooklyn Center
Planning _Committee
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Gary Shallcross
We are requesting a change in the lot line between Duane
Saari and John Rooney. This request is due to the lot line as
it now stands there is not a straight acess to the Saari garage.
His driveway runs over the Rooney property, in fact at the street
end of Saari's driveway the lot line is approximately in the
center of it.
When Saari's purchased the property 17+ years ago the
lot line irregularity did no! - show up during the closing or
the title search. After the closing the ne_hbors discussed the
problem and Saari agreed to go along with the agreement the
previous owner of the Paul Drive home and Mr. Rooney had made. That
agreement gave Rooney 12 feet at the back of his lot and 9.5 feet
at the front of the lot line at the street to Saari.
This change is an asset to both partiesfor Saari it is
straight acess to his garage, for Rooney it has squared off his
back yard and increased it.
Also, this change is necessary for either party to be able
to sell their property as it is not listable as is.
We appreciate your consideration of this problem and hope
you will see our problem and straighten the lot line out for us.
Thank you in advance.
Duane H. Saari John Rooney
5113 Paul Drive 6412 Scott Ave
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
' 15 -112
Section 15 -112. VARIANCES.
a. The council may authorize a variance from these regulations when in its
opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In granting
any variance the council shall prescribe only conditions that it deems
necessary to or desirable for the public interest.
In making its findings as required herein below, the council shall take
into account the nature of the proposed use of land, the existing use
of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the
proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed
subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. To grant a
variance, the council shall find.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said
property such that the strict application of the provisions of this
ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
P Pp of his
land.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation ry ion and enjoyment
Y P J Ym ent
of a substantial property right of the petitioner.
3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which said property is situated.
b. Application for any such variance shall be made in writing by the
subdivider at the time when the preliminary plat is filed for the
consideration of the council, stating fully and clearly all facts
relied upon by the petitioner and shall be supplemented with maps,
plans or other additional data which may aid the council in the
analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall
include such covenants, restrictions, or other legal provisions
necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan.
r rA
r
// 111 it � . �� ■r ■� r i i
. a�� � � ■� ►���� r/� �: � ■' : ' �111� 1 1111 /1
■r �r . i t rr � �,� �,� r�r . r , r IIE�� ;. 1111
■
. �'1■ • 1'��•. . • ..... 11111
BO �r . r
Bill
SUNNI r,�111117 111 . •• � ' ■ 11 �■�
��► � /1! � � ■�' /111 �i '�" OP.
,.• , - �' . �, .,���I 1����■ :• r�- ■ 11111 it
�1 %I / /ICy � /i ���• ■ � : 1,11111 11 , ,
i 1/1'111/ •�� 111/ • .., �� ''1 � .
e..11c'I /111111/1 1► ■�ti
❖:�:� ❖:!71111 / . , IaII�1 .:
;� // 1111 • '
1111 Bills
:- ......r.�.�.•.•�•�•'� // $ .�■ �/ /11111/ :,; ;� ,�
1 /11111
.?VIII /111 ♦,; ,.,..•�
•,�� tii � ►- ' ti ' ,:..11 ��� S■ �i / /�/ � ■ �� �'
�K • ' ,� .. � �, ... • /�/ /�/ /11111 �- ; ••� '■
�� /I� � .�► .. ��/ 111111 �.. ..
w __ .• / 1111/ 1 / 1 1111 // ■,• ; ••� ,
' � .,�,.,�, �• , . 1 / /� / /C!! /11111
ar
111
1 jt�11 /1 ,��.' • ..
. -. ...,,,� �b11111/ 1//1//111/////1 iilD� ,.., ,• ,.,, ,.
` ._. 11��� /�■ 1 / /1� ■r x //1/11/1//1/// �'�■ �■� �■
AN
� 11111111.:: ,,� . ,;; . ,� . � 1111 11111 11/11/►. � �
MEN ,�11/► •• • 111., t
CERTIFICATE of SURVEY for:
R.E. Stransky Land Surveyors D U A N E SAAR 1
2301 Woodbridge Street • Suite 201 IN
Roseville. 55113 x ' A
(6 12) 482- J O H N ROONEY
SCALE
I" . 20 feet
SURVEY OF: Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 3; DONNAY "S Bearings shown are assumed
BROOK LYN GARDENS according to the
plat of record and on file in the O Denotes iron monument marked by
Office of the County Recorder, Minnesota Registration no. 14945
Hennepin County, Minnesota. ( N Denotes iron monument found
LOT 2 Subject to easements of record. r
� LOT 17
CQ
S 0 "W 130. IN
-- 49 oZ �
2 o Z 1
- y. yy ti i o v
w
w ?�
ID Win u st
t J Q
i U 4
`1l �
W L) q
a LOT 3 a cl a W / �0 ,z 11/
_ I 1 u e '
(o zt c 2 O
Co 0 W u /o
f`
bufw FS /
M p � 4
J /
( S '
a %, 3
0, 'f 37 Og ' u� o
IWD S0 54 cr- 100_87 (t) I / 91 W LOT s
N
f.. o
07
Ct
o e
u
o h N 2
341 z w J
Mo
W N
(0
11 0)
0 T <J ! N < !, W Cf) O ° Li 3- ! e R
° N o
M LOT 4 o
0
04 I '
41 N J W
� Q a 31
N _ a F lu 0
0-0
N VJ F M 00
a� U� I (�
a "
°- ° °-
25
=3 °5152" 85.0 N
R = 1260.2 _
° N 3 0 21 1 45 ° W
20 71 L . M
I hereby cerify that this survey, plan or
M S(A�F report was prepared by me or under my direc
y 9.5 B' r AV ENUE supervision and that I am a duly licensed
C 0 T - Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
S ` -- f T — of Minnesota. !
-. —' Si ned this/ day ay o t��- 1989
NOTE: There are no encroachments to or from said
parcels except as shown hereon. Robert E. Stransky, LS --
Minn. Lie. No. 14945
0 7 - 3 - 8903V Fn/ 33- 115 -Z/
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3 - -90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Planning Commission Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of
Brooklyn Center
DEPARTMENT APPR
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection
af�
4
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: A ✓., ,
No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached-
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x
Planning Commission Application No. 89003 is a request to rezone
from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce) certain lands lying
both north and south of I -694 between Shingle Creek and T.H.
100 /Humboldt Avenue North. The land in question is both partially
• vacant and partially developed. It includes the sites for the
Holiday Inn, La Casita restaurant, Econolodge motel, Budgetel
motel, the Earle Brown Bowl, the Hardees restaurant and the vacant
lands south of Freeway Boulevard and north of I -694. South of the
freeway the rezoning appplication comprehends the property lying
easterly of Shingle Creek Parkway and westerly of T.H. 100 and
includes Brookdale Corporate Center I, II and III, the Earle Brown
Farm and the Earle Brown Office Tower. Attached is a map
highlighting the areas proposed to be rezoned under this City
initiated rezoning application.
This application was reviewed and recommended by the Planning
Commission over one year ago when the Commission recommended
Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 relating to its
recommendation regarding a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -2 recommending the
approval of this rezoning application. Also, the Planning
Commission had recommended an ordinance amendment which would have
eliminated certain uses in the Industrial Park zone. The reason
this application was not presented to the City Council was related
to questions which were raised, primarily by the City Attorney,
regarding whether or not the Zoning Ordinance amendment would be
appropriate. The staff was also reviewing, at that time, a
proposed PUD ordinance which would address some of the concerns
expressed by the City Attorney. The rezoning application was,
therefore, held off until after the PUD ordinance was considered
and adopted by the City Council.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION (PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89003)
• Page 2
The principal impetus to the proposed rezoning is a desire to make
the I -1 zone more truly an industrial park zone primarily for
office, warehouse, light manufacturing, some service uses and
wholesale trade uses and to eliminate the potential development in
the I -1 zone of certain commercial uses which are believed to be
inappropriate in certain areas of the Industrial Park.
Furthermore, the rezoning would recognize the commercial nature of
some already existing development in the area which is
appropriately located and would also set aside this area for future
development of commercial uses of the type found in the area
between Freeway Boulevard and the freeway.
Along with this rezoning is a proposal to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to eliminate certain commercial uses already allowed,
generally through the issuance of a special use permit, in the I -1
zone.
Concerns regarding the City's ability (or inability) to control
development through the use of the special use permit technique
have forced us to take another look at the question or appropriate
uses in the industrial park zone. At one time, after the adoption
of the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, most of the land in the area around
• Shingle Creek Parkway and the freeway was zoned I -1, including the
areas now zoned C2 south of Summit Drive. As roadways were
developed in these areas, proposals for commercial development came
forward, land was rezoned and used ultimately for commercial
purposes. The I -1 zone was viewed as a zone to be preserved for
employment where commerce had a limited role. However, the City
desired to have the flexibility to allow certain commercial uses in
this industrial park zone where it could be demonstrated that the
uses were compatible with, complimentary to, and of comparable
intensity to uses already permitted in the industrial park
district. Therefore, in 1973, the City Council amended the
ordinance to allow certain commercial uses in the I -1 zone through
the issuance of a special use permit. Control of the location of
the uses was with the City which could deny the uses if it found
that the uses were not compatible, complimentary, or of comparable
intensity or that the uses could not meet the Standards for Special
Use Permits contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The burden of proof
was with the developer t
p o show the proposal met these criteria. In
1976 the City Council further amended the Zoning Ordinance to
provide even more flexibility by comprehending even more commercial
uses in the I -1 zone. The City also was generally dealing with one
developer in the Industrial Park and there was, for the most part,
a common consensus on what uses would be appropriate and in what
location.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
• Page 3
Two things have changed since that time which we believe lead to
the need to pursue the proposed rezoning. One is how courts have
more recently viewed the whole special use permit process. If uses
are listed as either a special use or a permitted use in a zoning
district, courts have generally tended to look at this fact as
giving the owner a property right to make use of the land in such
a manner. The burden has, in reality shifted to the City to prove
such a use, or uses, are inappropriate. So, in great part, the
flexibility sought by the City in allowing expanded uses in the I -1
zone through its amendments in 1973 and 1976 to the Zoning
Ordinance have really reduced the City's ability to control the use
question.
Also, a potential change in philosophy of the developer of the
Industrial Park has caused some changes. The principal developer
is more inclined to sell land for development than he was in the
past and there is not as clear a plan for long range development in
the Industrial Park as there had been in the past. These two
factors have gone a long way toward influencing the recommended
rezoning proposal and ordinance amendment.
The Planning Commission Information Sheet dated January 26, 1989
• relating to this application, I believe, outlines quite well the
justification for the proposed rezoning. Attached are Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 and 89 -2 which represent the
Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the Comprehensive
Plan regarding uses allowed in the area immediately north of the
freeway and east of Shingle Creek Parkway and their rationale for
the proposed rezoning. The Commission g mi n reaffirmed these two
resolutions at their March 1, 1990 meeting. They also recommended
a Zoning Ordinance amendment which would eliminate a number of
commercial uses, now comprehended as special uses in the I -1 zoning
district.
Attached for the City Council's y review are the following items
related to this matter:
1. A February 27, 1990 memorandum to the Planning Commission
from the Planning staff.
2. The January 26, 1989 Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application No. 89003.
3. The January 26, 1989 Planning Commission minutes relating
to Application No. 89003.
4. The March 2, 1989 Planning Commission Information Sheet
relating to this application and the March 2, 1989
• Planning Commission minutes relating to this application.
® SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Page 4
5. A copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -2 setting forth the
Planning Commission's recommendation regarding
Application No. 89003.
6. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes from March 1,
1990 relating to this matter.
7. A map of this area highlighting the land areas proposed
to be rezoned from I -1 to C2.
8. A copy of Figure 15 and Table 14 from the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
9. A letter from the Metropolitan Council indicating that
the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any
of the metropolitan system plans, therefore, the City may
place the amendment into effect immediately.
10. A copy of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City
• Ordinances regarding permitted and special uses in the
C1, C2 and I -1 zoning districts which was recommended by
the Planning Commission at its March 1, 1990.
Recommendation
Two resolutions, one a resolution amending the City's Comprehensive
Plan relative to a land north of I -694 and east of Shingle Creek,
adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and a resolution regarding the
disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 89003 submitted
by the City of Brooklyn Center are offered for adoption by the City
Council. If these resolutions are adopted, the proposed rezoning
and Comprehensive Plan amendment will be effective. Also offered
for the City Council's consideration is the first reading on an
ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding
permitted and special uses in the C1, C2, and I -1 zoning districts.
•
MEMORANDUM
0 TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Uses Permitted in C1, C2, and I -1 Zones
DATE: February 27, 1990
This memo is to return to the Planning Commission for consideration
a City- initiated rezoning application (No. 89003) to rezone a
number of parcels near or adjacent to the freeway from I -1 to C2,
and an ordinance amendment which would eliminate certain commercial
uses from the I -1 to C2, and an ordinance amendment which would
eliminate certain commercial uses from the I -1 zone special uses.
The Planning Commission considered these matters early in 1989 and
adopted Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 (Comprehensive
Plan amendment) and 89 -2 (Rezoning) recommending to the City
Council adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning
on March 2, 1989. Attached is a copy of the minutes of the March
2 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the resolutions and the
recommended ordinance amendment. These matters were not considered
by the City Council, but were held off, pending adoption of a
Planned Unit Development ordinance, which will add flexibility to
all zoning districts within the City.
Also attached for the Commission's consideration is a new draft
ordinance amendment regarding uses permitted in the C1, C2, and I -1
zones. It differs from the ordinance recommended by the Commission
in March 1989 in certain respects. First of all, it adds as a
permitted use, in the C1 and C2 zones, leasing offices provided
there is no storage or display of products on the use site.
Secondly, it removes automobile and truck rental and leasing as a
permitted use in the I -1 zone. It is believed that such a use,
unless it is simply a leasing office, would likely involve outdoor
storage of leased vehicles or inventory which is otherwise
prohibited in the I -1 zone. Thirdly, and most importantly, it
eliminates from the I -1 zone all retail sales uses as principal
uses. The previous ordinance amendment allowed certain single -
tenant retail uses, however, the City Attorney has expressed
concerns about that approach. Retail sales as an accessory use
would still be allowed by special use permit. We feel that the
Schmitt Music use - -which combines warehousing, educational lessons,
and retail sales - -can be comprehended under this provision. Other
retail sales uses may be comprehended under a PUD approval.
Finally, the new ordinance amendment reduces the range of
commercial uses allowed in the I -1 zone by special use permit.
Among the uses to be eliminated from consideration would be:
eating establishments of all kinds, equipment rental and leasing
services, hospitals, gasoline service stations and motor vehicle
repair, transient lodging, clubrooms and lodges. School bus
garages and tennis clubs would be added as special uses in the I -1
zone.
Memo
Page 2
February 27, 1990
The general effect of these changes would be to make the I -1 zone
more of a zone for employment, where commerce would have a limited
role. The rezoning of land adjacent to the freeway should
accommodate commercial development demand in this area for some
time to come. Moreover, the PUD ordinance will add flexibility for
mixing uses which did not previously exist. We feel that the draft
ordinance amendment would include in the I -1 zone uses which are
likely to be compatible with, complementary to, and of comparable
intensity to the other uses permitted in the I -1 zone. A copy of
the C2 and I -1 permitted and special uses is attached for the
Commission's review. We will be prepared to discuss this matter
further at Thursday's meeting. It is hoped that the Commission can
act on the revised ordinance amendment at that time.
C) Granting a variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by
undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to
major thoroughfares.
Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
Chairman Nelson then inquired of the Commission as to whether they recommend the
ordinance amendment drafted by staff. Commissioner Malecki asked whether she
understood correctly that, if 69th Avenue North becomes a four lane street, it would
become a major thoroughfare again. The Secretary responded in the affirmative,
adding that it would only be a major thoroughfare where widened to four lanes. He
noted that there is no plan as yet to widen 69th west of Brooklyn Boulevard where it
is a county road.
ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REDEFINING MAJOR THOROUGHFARES
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Definition of
Major Thoroughfares as all four lane streets and roads. Voting in favor: Chairman
Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 89003 (City of Brooklyn Center)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning
approval by the City of Brooklyn Center of the land bordering the freeway, generally
south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive. The Secretary reviewed the
contents of the staff report (see Planning Commissionr Information Sheet for
Application No. 89003 attached). The Secretary added that he would like the
Commission to review the ordinance language amending the uses permitted in the I -1
zone. He noted that the language in the ordinance draft would eliminate all C2 uses
except service /office uses from the I -1 zone. He reviewed with the Commission some
of the C2 uses that would be eliminated, including retail sales, restaurants, and
some service uses. He stated that the Commission should take a close look at what
would be taken out of the I -1 zone. He stated that the initial concern was to
prevent fast food restaurants and budget motels at the northwest corner of Shingle
Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that he recommended that the
Commission not go as far as the draft ordinance, but rather consider allowing the
permitted C2 uses in the I -1 zone, while excluding the special uses such as fast food
restaurants and transient lodging.
In response to a question from Chairman Nelson as to the vacant parcels involved, the
Secretary showed the Commission a map of the commercial and industrial park and
pointed out existing vacant parcels in the I -1 zone and the parcels that would be
rezoned under the proposed rezoning.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the proposed ordinance covers the things that
he would not like to see in the I -1 zone, including retail centers. He stated that
he did not think a restaurant would go on the I -1 zoned land remaining. Chairman
Nelson asked whether the ordinance would eliminate a dining facility. The
Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that he would not recommend going
that far. He stated that hew would ld also allow retail uses in the I -1 zone. He noted
that there is some retail that would still be allowed as an accessory use to
manufacturing, and wholesale, etc. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City
could restrict the type of retail uses that would go into the I -1 zone. He stated
that he did not want to see a strip shopping center built in the I -1 zone. The
Secretary stated that the Commission could look at ordinance language e in t
�
1 -26 -89 _2_
restricting retail establishments in the I -1 zone. He stated that some retail uses
have been allowed, such as Schmitt Music and the former Carriage House use west of
Shingle Creek. He admitted that allowing retail uses in the I -1 zone could open up
the possibility of a strip shopping center, but he doubted that such a use would be
proposed. Commissioner Ainas acknowledged that a strip shopping center was not
expected, but he would still like to prevent it.
Mr. Al Beisner, the representative of Richardson and Sons, the owner of much of the
vacant land left north of the freeway, commented on the ordinance amendment changes.
Chairman Nelson asked about the possibility of restaurants at Shingle Creek Parkway
and Freeway Boulevard. Mr. Beisner stated that he had talked to representatives of
a couple of restaurants interested in locating at the northwest corner of Shingle
Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary briefly reviewed the areas
proposed for rezoning to C2 and asked Mr. Beisner to comment on the reality and
potential for the I -1 zone. Mr. Beisner stated that he had contacts with a company
that wanted to put a furniture showroom similar to Schmitt Music west of the Schmitt
Music site. He also stated that a restaurant could be proposed at the northwest
corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that the area at
Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is a very popular corner and will be in
the future. He predicted that the industrial building at the northeast corner of
Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard would probably be demolished and
redeveloped in the next five years or so. He stated that he understood the aim of
the ordinance amendment, but would still like to allow restaurants in the I -1 zone.
Commissioner Malecki stated that it sounded as if the vision Mr. Beisner had of the
land along Freeway Boulevard involved more commercial than industrial uses. Mr.
Beisner stated that that could be what works out. He stated, that because of the
first ring suburb location of the industrial park, the City would not see much
warehousing proposed in this area, but would see more service - oriented uses. He
stated that he did not want to see the City zone out future possibilities for the
industrial park. Commissioner Ainas asked whether Mr. Beisner foresaw a strip
shopping center in the I -1 zone. Mr. Beisner answered in the negative, but stated
that a retail showroom /warehouse type use, similar to Schmitt Music might be
proposed. The Secretary pointed out that what spurred the rezoning proposal was
interest on the part of fast food restaurants and budget motels to locate at Shingle
Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that staff did not believe such uses
would reflect well on the industrial park and the Planning Commission and City
Council had concurred with that judgement. He went on to explain that the uses
south of Freeway Boulevard were basically commercial in nature even though they were
located in the industrial park zoning district. He stated that staff had become
concerned that the City would be unable to defend in court a denial of a special use
permit for a fast food restaurant and a budget motel since similar uses had been
allowed in the area south of Freeway Boulevard.
Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could distinguish between a large and a
small restaurant in its use regulations. The Secretary stated that the City
already distinguishes between convenience food restaurants and other eating
establishments. He also pointed out that a liquor license requires a restaurant to
have at least 150 dining seats.
Commissioner Malecki asked whether Schmitt Music wouldn't fit under the category of
retail sales as an accessory use to wholesale and warehousing uses. The Secretary
stated that it possibly could, but that that building was originally an appliance
showroom and warehouse for Kennedy and Cohen. Commissioner Malecki noted that
there had been educational uses in the I -1 zone such as a dance studio. The
Secretary also pointed out some other uses that had been allowed, including
gymnasiums.
1 -26 -89 -3-
Mr. Beisner stated that he was concerned that the City not send the message that some
good things for the industrial park would be kept out. The Secretary suggested that
the application could be tabled until the next study meeting when a Comprehensive
Plan amendment would be brought back for the Commission's consideration. He added
that, in the interim, staff could get further input on potential uses from Mr.
Beisner.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89003)
Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether
anyone else wished to comment on the proposed rezoning. Hearing no one, he called
for a motion to table the application and continue the public hearing until the next
study meeting.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89003 AND CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING (Application No.
89003 - City of Brooklyn Center )
Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner Ainas, to table
Application No. 89003 and continue the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman
Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
Chairman Nelson added that he would like to see language that would allow an upscale
type restaurant in the I -1 zone, but definitely not a fast food restaurant.
DISCUSSION ITEM
a) Residential Facilities
The Secretary then introduced the topic of how to regulate community based
residential i ential facilities within the City. e pointed Y p d out that the City as retained
Donn Wiski as a consultant to help he City y
based P y develop regulations governing community
e residential facilities. • sties. He noted also that the City has retained Peter
Patchin to study property value changes that occur due to the location of group homes
in residential neighborhoods. He informed the Commission that the preliminary
results of Mr. PatchinIs study do not appear to support the contention that property
values decline when a group home is located in a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Donn Wiski, of Resolution, Inc., then distributed to the Planning Commission
copies of a preliminary report entitled Community Based Residential Facilities
Regulatory Framework Evaluation. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission some
of the graphs and tables in the report. Mr. Wiski stated that one key term used in
zoning regulations is the residential unit and how that unit is defined.
Mr. Wiski stated that, many years ago, cities had a mixture of land uses within a
given district. He stated that zoning regulations for some time then sought to
separate uses into homogeneous districts, but that now regulations were moving back
in the direction of allowing some mixture of uses within districts. He cited
Riverplace as an example of a mixed use development. He added that court decisions
have been moving toward a more liberal definition of the family unit to include group
occupancies as well as family occupancies.
Mr. Wiski pointed out that there has been a decline in state hospital occupancy over
the last 30 years. He stated that the trend toward deinstitutionialization has
been matched by more people coming from single family homes into supervised living
facilities. He informed the Commission that there are far more offenders living in
s g
supervised
living g arrangements than are actually confined in prisons or jails. Mr.
1 -2E -89 -4-
Wiski told the Commission that the City cannot discriminate in deciding who can live
where. He reviewed with the Commission a table which summarized the types of
community based residential facilities that operate under various state rules. He
stated that the task of the Commission is to develop a land use regulation to overlay
these operational rules governing residential facilities. He stated one potential
area of regulation would be the size of the facility. He pointed out that
supervised living facilities tend to be smaller in number of clients than those
where total care is offered, such as nursing homes, which tend to be large
institutions. Mr. Wiski reviewed various ways to distinguish facilities, among
them: living arrangement, living support, support type and facility size or level
of activity. He suggested that it should be possible to distinguish between
independent living facilities and service dependent living facilities. He added
that regulations should cover what is permitted in various districts and number of
persons per housing unit.
Mr. Wiski then reviewed various implementation options, including: a) do nothing
b) comply with State preemption c) revise definitions of family and supportive
housing, and d) adopt regulations including: permitted uses with conditions,
special uses with special conditions, and a separate special use permit process.
Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission policy considerations dealing with
group homes, including district uses, new districts, and regulations or conditions
governing group homes.
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Wiski whether his task was to help the City devise
regulations to deal with community based residential facilities. Mr. Wiski
responded in the affirmative and stated that it was important for the City to have a
Policy and regulations in place before proposals for group homes come forth.
Commissioner Malecki asked whether there were other communities that have such
policies. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative, mentioning Plymouth and Eden
Prairie among other cities that have dealt with the issue. He stated that each
community has to look at the issue and devise a policy for itself.
The Secretary explained that the City had contracted for a broader based study than
just dealing with the Bill Kelly House. He stated that there were concerns
regarding property values and safety impacts of community based residential
facilities. He added that the City can only regulate land use aspects of community
based residential facilities, not operational considerations. He stated that
community based residential facilities will be here, whether we like them or not.
He stated that legal decisions have been laid down protecting the rights of facility
residents to locate in residential zoning districts and limiting the scope of local
regulation. He explained that Mr. Wiski is laying out possibilities that the City
can have for regulating such facilities, but that the State has preempted some of the
decisions. Mr. Wiski recommended that the regulations set conditions for
community based residential facilities and, if they are met, such facilities should
be allowed. Chairman Nelson concluded that the Commission is being told that it
cannot say no and get away with it. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and
reiterated that cities cannot discriminate on the basis of who can live where.
The Secretary commented that one option would be to allow group homes as a permitted
use with limited occupancies consistent with State law and not have any special use
category. He asked whether the special use process has helped or served any purpose
in resolving differences between group home advocates and neighborhood residence.
He noted that, in the case of the Bill Kelly House, attitudes have not changed as a
result of the public hearings. He went on to explain that the moratorium imposed on
1 -26 -89 -5-
group homes was to allow time for a study of possible land use regulations governing
group homes. He added that the City cannot deny a facility with 7 to 16 clients in a
multiple family zone, since State law mandates that such facilities are permitted
uses in multiple family zoning districts.
Mr. Wiski commented that, when the State preempted zoning authority on facilities
with six or fewer clients, it quieted down the neighborhoods, since there were no
public hearings and no debate on whether such a facility could be located in a
residential neighborhood. He added, however, that there should be limits as to
what can be allowed in both single family and multiple family districts.
The Secretary informed the Commission that he has had contacts with people in the
neighborhood group (near the Bill Kelly House) and with a legal representative of
the Bill Kelly House. He stated that he would expect people to show up at future
meetings where these regulations will be discussed. He concluded by stating that
the issue before the Commission is how to regulate community based residential
facilities generally, not just the Bill Kelly House.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission.
The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Chairman
1 -26 -89 -6-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No, 89003
Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center
Location: Generally between I94 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to
Days Inn and between I94 and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek
Parkway and Highway 100.
Request: Rezoning
The City requests that the land bordering on the freeway (north and south) south of
Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive be rezoned from I1 (Industrial Park) to
C2 (General Commerce). The land in question is partially vacant and partially
developed. It includes the Holiday Inn, La Casita Restaurant, Econolodge
(formerly Thrifty Scot), Budgetel, and Earle Brown Bowl north of the freeway.
South of the freeway it includes Brookdale Corporate Centers I, II and III, the Earle
Brown Farm, and the Earle Brown Office Tower. Many adjacent vacant parcels are also
included. Please refer to the attached area map for a designation of the properties
included in this rezoning proposal.
Background
The principal impetus to the proposed rezoning is a desire on the part of the City to
make the I -1 zone more truly an industrial park zone primarily for office,
warehouse, light manufacturing, some service uses, and wholesale trade. Proposed
along with the rezoning is an ordinance amendment that would eliminate from the I -1
zone certain special uses allowed in the C2 zoning district, including transient
lodging, convenience food restaurants, bowling alleys, movie theatres, gymnasiums,
eating establishments offering live entertainment, etc. Many permitted uses in
the C2 zoning district, including retail sales and eating establishments not
offering live entertainment would continue to be allowed by special use permit.
The Commission may wish to recommend eliminating these uses as well. To do so would
make Schmitt Music nonconforming (though perhaps their sales could be compreheded
as accessory to a wholesale or warehouse function). Nevertheless, we would not
favor the development of a strip shopping center at the northwest corner of Shingle
Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. To prevent that would require eliminating
most retail sales from the I -1 zoning district or rezoning that area to perhaps C1A,
allowing only service /office uses with no height limitation.
The City staff have received, over the past few years, a number of inquiries
regarding the land at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway
Boulevard. Among them have been inquiries into the possibility of developing the
area for fast -food restaurants and /or budget motels. We believe the parcel at the
northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is prime land and
that its development will reflect favorably or unfavorably on the industrial park
and, to some extent, on the City itself. We do not believe that development of a
fast -food restaurant and /or a budget motel would be appropriate for this key
parcel. However, they would be allowed by special use permit under the current
ordinance. A concept plan f
p p or a high-rise office building as als o submitted
g
g
approximately two years ago, but has gone nowhere due to the excess of such space in
the northern suburbs at this time. Nevertheless, we believe such a development
would be more appropriate in that location. The ordinace amedment proposed would
continue to allow office uses in the I -1 zone by special use permit.
Simply eliminating ertain commercial
g uses from the I -1 zone would result in many
uses between 194 and Freeway Boulevard, and the transient lodging proposed for the
Earle Brown Farm, becoming nonconforming uses. This is certainly not a desirable
1 -26 -89 _1_
Application No. 8 continued
result. The alternative is to rezone most of the I -1 land south of Freeway
Boulevard to C2, recognizing the commercial nature of the development in this area
and allowing it to continue as conforming. We propose that the City do the latter
and, thus, this application is put forward for consideration.
Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings
All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section
35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The following comments are offered to
address the guidelines.
(a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
The effect of the rezoning and ordinance amendment is to reduce the overlap between
the I -1 and C2 districts and to explicitly plan for commercial rather than
industrial development on the land near the freeway. The proposed rezoning
ratifies a trend which has been prevalent in the area near the freeway and limits the
uses which may be developed in the industrial park. The resulting benefit is that
commercial uses will be allowed to locate near the freeway, while the industrial
park will be reserved for industrial and office uses. We believe there is benefit
to this action because it will prevent or reduce the commercialization of the
industrial park and will preserve it as a place for employment rather than a place
for trade and commerce.
(b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding
land use classifications?
South of the freeway, the zoning district abutting the existing I -1 zone is the C2
zoning district; so, of course, the new C2 zoning designation will be compatible.
North of the freeway, the new C2 district will abut the I -1 zoning district. While
the proposed ordinance amendment will create a greater distinction between the two
zones, we certainly do not believe these zones are incompatible.
(c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for
development of the subject property?
We believe they can. The area in question abuts the freeway and has almost no
residential abutment. There need be no extensive buffers which might compromise
the buildability of certain parcels. Nor are there any limitations such as gas
stations not abutting Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property.
(d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the
area since the subject property was zoned?
One major physical change has been the redesign of the Highway 100/194 interchange
eliminating some movements and the opening up of the Shingle Creek Parkway /I94
interchange. These roadway modifications have brought much more traffic to
Shingle Creek Parkway, especially south of the freeway where it is the most direct
route to Brookdale. The increased traffic at this interchange has tended to boost
1 -26 -89 _2_
Application No. 89003 continued
commercial demand for the area and has led to the construction of two motels and a
restaurant north of the freeway and three major office buildings south of the
freeway.
As to zoning changes, there have been other rezonings of land south of the freeway
from I -1 to C2. Apparently, after the adoption of the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, most
of the land between County Road 10 and I94 was zoned I -1. As the system of roadways
was completed in the late 60's and early 70's, development proposals for commercial
use were approved with rezoning of land to C2, ultimately to its present
configuration. Prior to 1973, C2 uses were not allowed in the I -1 zone. Then, in
1973, an ordinance amendment was adopted allowing certain C2 uses by special use
permit. Later, more C2 uses were allowed as designated in the present ordinance.
One rationale behind the amendment was to give the City more discretion in approving
commercial uses near the freeway. The I -1 zoning was, thus, retained and special
use permits were granted for the commercial uses north of the freeway and the office
buildings ng south of the freeway.
The rezoning proposal and ordinance amendment before the Commission represent a
change in strategy. We no longer have confidence that certain C2 uses can be
denied, even though they are special uses in the I -1 district. In effect, ect we are
saying that the trend of commercialization near the freeway should be ratified by
rezoning where it has already occurred, but should be prevented - by ordinance
amendment - from further infiltrating the industrial park. The Shingle Creek
Parkway freeway interchange has made the land close to the freeway too valuable for
traditional industrial development. Since I -1 uses are not likely to be built on
the land in question, and since denial of special uses is at least difficult, we
recommend the proposed rezoning and ordinance amendment as the best strategy for
controlling development in the future.
(e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public
purpose evident?
The public purpose of the rezoning is to more clearly define both in terms of real
estate and ordinance regulations the location and content of the industrial park.
To do that, it is necessary to place freeway- oriented commercial development in the
commercial district - C2, and tighten up the allowable uses in the I -1 zone. This
action will, we hope, preserve the character of the industrial
park while allowing
commercial uses to locate on the most valuable land next to the freeway.
(f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning district?
Yes. All the properties in question are of adequate size for commercial
development and face no extraordinary buffer or use limitations because of
residential abutment.
(g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the
present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography
or location?
There has never been a formal proposal for an industrial use on the parcels contained
1-26 -89 -3-
Application No. 89003 continued
in the rezoning proposal. There are existing commercial uses and office buildings
which have been approved by special use permit in the I -1 zone. We would expect that
even if the I -1 zoning remained, development proposals would likely be for
commercial rather than industrial uses. The topography of the land in question is
suitable for either use. The recent replat of the land south of Freeway Boulevard
and east and south of the Earle Brown Bowl has created a number of smaller parcels
most likely for development of small commercial establishments, not large
speculative industrial buildings which characterize the industrial park. The
primary factor of unsuitability is location. Because of their proximity to the
freeway and the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange, the parcels to be rezoned are
more suitable for commercial development with freeway visibility. Such uses are
presently allowed in the I -1 zone, but will not be in the future if the proposed
ordinance amendment is adopted.
(h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted
by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the
proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community?
The land covered by the rezoning is contained in areas 6a and 11 of the Land Use
Revisions Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan (attached). Area 6a covers most of
the parcels north of the freeway. The recommendation for 6a is "light industrial."
The proposed zoning and a number of existing land uses in the area are clearly not
light industrial, though the zoning has been for light industrial (and by special
use permit, commercial uses). A Comprehensive Plan amendment may be warranted,
creating a separate area for commercial development north of the freeway. Area 11,
south of the freeway, was the subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1986 in
which the recommendation for the area was changed from service /office to "Mixed Use
Development (including High Density, High -Rise Residential, Service /Office and
General Commerce)." The proposed C2 zoning is certainly consistent with this
Plan recommendation.
As to to the lack of developable land in the C2 zoning district, there is vacant C2
zoned land near 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 in the northeast neighborhood.
However, with the upcoming construction of the City County Credit Union, there is no
more vacant C2 land left in the vicinity of the Earle Brown Farm. As to the best
interests of the community, we would argue that preserving the industrial park as a
place of employment and keeping commercial uses in areas for the most part south of
Freeway Boulevard is in the best interests of the community. The present zoning
designation and use restrictions do not, we feel, adequately protect against the
"commercialization" of the industrial park. We believe such commercialization is
detrimental to the industrial park in terms of its character, aesthetics, traffic
control and parcelization. Reducing the options for development in the I -1 zone is
the only way of distinguishing clearly between the I -1 and C2 zoning districts and
limiting commercialization to appropriate locations.
(i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or
owners of an individual parcel?
This is not an owner - initiated rezoning. The effect of the rezoning will be to make
some commercial uses which are now special uses, permitted uses. At the same time,
1 -26 -89 -4-
Application No. 89003 continued
industrial uses will be prohibited. We believe the net effect for the property
owners will be somewhat positive, but not really to the detriment of the community.
It seems clear from past history that the development of the subject property would
in all likelihood be commercial even under the I -1 zoning. The proposed rezoning
recognizes this reality and zones for it openly.
Procedure
Normally, rezoning applications are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory
group for review and comment. However, there is no neighborhood advisory group for
the commercial and industrial park in the center of town. The Planning Commission
itself serves that function. A public hearing has been scheduled for this meeting
and notices have been sent. The Commission should open the public hearing and take
whatever comments are offered. The Commission may certainly table the application
if it wishes to and /or direct staff to prepare a resolution concerning the matter.
We recommend that any favorable action on the rezoning be accompanied by action on
the draft ordinance amendment also before the Commission.
1 -26 -89 -5-
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
MARCH 2, 1989
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike
Nelson at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, and Kristen
Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City
Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1989
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the
minutes of the February 16, 1989 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman
Nelson, Commissioners Malecki and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting:
Commissioner Mann. The motion passed.
APPLICATION N0. 8900 (Cit of Broo klyn
3 ( Center
Y )
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of
business, a request for approval of a rezoning from I -1 to C2 of the land generally
lying near the freeway between Shingle Creek and Highway 100. The Secretary
reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application No. 89003 attached).
The Secretary also reviewed with the Commission the draft ordinance amendment
regarding special uses in the I -1 zone. He explained that all of the uses that would
be eliminated were special uses. He went on to explain that there have been
amendments to the I -1 zone permitted uses in the past that have allowed more and more
commercial uses by special use permit. He stated that the concern arose last year
that the City would be unable to deny a special use permit for a convenience food
restaurant and a budget rate motel at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and
Shingle Creek Parkway. He explained that the amended I -1 zone special uses would
eliminate transient lodging and convenience food restaurants as special uses in the
I -1 zone. He added that gas stations and multiple tenant retail centers would also
be excluded. He noted, however, that single tenant retail buildings offering for
sale large ticket items such as furniture and appliances would be allowed by special
use permit. He stated that he would consult with the City Attorney regarding the
legality of limiting retail uses to single tenant uses.
The Secretary then went on to review with the Commission the draft resolution on the
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the draft resolution regarding the proposed
rezoning. He explained that there should be a public hearing for both the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning.
Chairman Nelson stated that he thought the ordinance amendment would regulate
eating establishments by setting a minimum number of seats. He asked why live
entertainment was selected as a describing element. The Secretary responded that
eating establishments are allowed as a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, but
that eating establishments offering live entertainment are classified as a special
use in the C2 zone and would also be a special use in the I -1 zone.
3 -2 -89 _1_
In response to a question from Chairman Nelson regarding the possible legal
challenge to the types of retail uses allowed, the Secretary stated that he thought
you could distinguish between establishments offering for sale large ticket items
such as furniture and appliances, and those which offer a broader range of products.
Chairman Nelson asked whether a Holiday warehouse would be permitted in the I -1
zone. The Secretary responded in the negative, noting that Holiday sells a variety
of items, some of which are not big ticket items.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether a single tenant establishment implied a
separate building. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, explaining
establishments could not be attached in multiple tenant buildings.
PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Application No. 89003)
Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan amendment and on Application No. 89003 and asked whether anyone present wished
to speak regarding the application and amendment. Mr. Al Beisner, representing
Richardson and Sons, a prominent owner of land in the area to be rezoned, stated that
he was pretty much in agreement with the rezoning and the ordinance amendment
proposed by staff. He noted that a computer sales company has applied for space in
the Parkway Place building. The Secretary explained that retail sales of goods
wholesaled, processed or manufactured on the use site would still be a special use in
the I -1 zone. He stated that the concern that staff had at present was whether
retail sales could be limited to single tenant buildings. Mr. Beisner stated that
he thought the ordinance amendment would clean up the I -1 zone. He added that the
industrial park is becoming more service oriented than manufacturing or warehousing
oriented.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public
hearing on Application No. 89003. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Nelson suggested that the draft ordinance be amended slightly to
comprehend "other uses similar in nature" on the single tenant retail uses
acknowledged in the I -1 zone. The Planner added that it might be appropriate to add
"as determined by the City Council" rather than giving the discretion to the staff to
make such a determination. Chairman Nelson stated that an appeal of a staff
determination could always be made if it went against a potential user. The
Secretary pointed out that determinations by the City Council are relied on in the C1
and C2 zoning districts as well and such language might be appropriate.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether the traffic study which was done a couple of
years ago covered the area to be rezoned. The Secretary responded in the
affirmative, explaining that the traffic study included Brookdale and the entire
commercial and industrial area in the central part of town. Commissioner Bernards
stated that he saw the rezoning as having a neutral impact on potential development
in the area. The Secretary agreed, explaining that the rezoning would really
ratify the trend toward commercial development near the freeway. He explained that
the concern was aroused by a proposal to put a convenience food restaurant and a
budget motel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard.
The City staff and Council did not feel that such a proposal was appropriate and the
ordinance amendment and rezoning are intended to address those concerns.
Mr. Al Beisner told the Planning Commission that Hardees and Super 8 would be going
into the area south of Freeway Boulevard and east of Shingle Creek Parkway in part of
3 -2 -89 -2-
the area to be rezoned. The Secretary stated that the City has had no problem with
commercial uses south of Freeway Boulevard and that is why that area is being
rezoned.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public
hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The motion passed
unanimously.
ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTT
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255
(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATIVE TO LAND NORTH OF THE FREEWAY AND EAST OF SHINGLE CREEK,
ADJACENT TO FREEWAY BOULEVARD
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -1, recommending an amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan to allow commercial and service /office development in area 6a of
Figure 15 of the Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson,
Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 2 (Application No. 89003
submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89003 SUBMITTED BY
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -2 regarding rezoning Application No. 89003 submitted
by the City of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners
Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
MOTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE I -1 ZONE SPECIAL USES
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend an
ordinance amendment regarding special uses in the I -1 zone and including language
acknowledging uses similar in nature as determined by the City Council to the
allowable single tenant retail establishments. Voting in favor: Chairman
Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
The Secretary informed the Commission that he would be getting some additional
information from Mr. Donn Wiski, the City's consultant on land use regulations on
group homes, and would pass it along in the near future. The Secretary also stated
that he was grossly mis- stated by the Brooklyn Center Post in its February 23 issue
where some quotes were attributed to him regarding clientele in group homes. He
noted a number of erroneous quotes and clarified his statement to the Planning
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission.
The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Chairman
3 -2 -89 -3-
i
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 89003
Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center
Location: Generally between 1694 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to
Days Inn and between 1694 and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek
Parkway and Highway 100.
Request: Rezoning
This City - initiated rezoning was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January
26 1989 stud meeting. h
9 9 Y g The application was tabled and the public hearing
continued to a later date. A Comprehensive Plan amendment has been prepared and a
public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment has been called.
The parcels affected by the rezoning have been highlighted on the attached area map
and are located generally between 1694 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to
the Days Inn (the Holiday Inn site is also included) and between Summit Drive and
1694 from Shingle Creek Parkway to Highway 100. The existing zoning is I -1
(Industrial Park) and the proposed zoning is C2 (Commerce).
Along with the rezoning application is a draft ordinance amendment which would
eliminate certain commercial uses from consideration in the I -1 zone (among them
transient lodging and convenience food restaurants). As we have indicated in our
previous report (attached), one purpose of the rezoning application is to ratify the
trend to commercial development where it seems most likely to occur and to limit the
possibilities of commercial development in the I -1 zone. The Commission is urged
to act on the ordinance concomitant with the rezoning.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment covers area 6a from the Land Use Revisions Map of
the Comprehensive Plan (attached). That area includes the Holiday Inn site, the
LaCasita restaurant, and land south of Freeway Boulevard and east of Shingle Creek
Parkway. The land use recommended for area 6a in Table 14 (also attached) of the
Plan is light industrial. We recommend broadening that designation to include
commercial and service /office uses as well. A draft resolution recommending the
Comprehensive Plan amendment is attached for the Commission's review. A
resolution relating to the rezoning application is also attached.
3 -2 -89
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
, 1989 at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Special
Uses in the I -1 Zoning District.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING SPECIAL USES IN THE I -1 ZONING DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 - 330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK
3. Special Uses
[c. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35 -414), motor vehicle repair
and auto washes provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district,
including abutment at a street line; trailer rental in conjunction
with these uses, provided that there is adequate trailer parking
46 space.]
[d.] c. Retail sales of products manufactured, processed, or wholesaled on the
use site.
[e.] d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the
principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
[f.] e. Those commercial developments, which in each specific case, are
demonstrated to the City Council to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those
uses permitted in the I -1 district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those
uses permitted in the I -1 district generally.
3. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be
within the capacity of available public facilities and will not
have an adverse impact upon the industrial park or the community.
and which are described in Section 35 -322, Subsection 1 (b) 1 (d)
through 1 (j); 13 (c); 3 (d); and 3 (g) through 3 (j)]. Such commercial
developments shall be subject to I -1 district requirements of Section 35 -400 and 35-
413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use
classification which the proposed development represents.
ORDINANCE NO.
f. Eating establishments offering live entertainment.
g. Single- tenant retail establishments offering for sale any of the
following items:
Furniture
Appliances
Musical instruments
Office equipment
Electronics
Computers
and other items similar in nature to the foregoing as determined
by the City Council.
[9.7 h. Warehousing and storage uses which, in each specific case, are
demonstrated to the City Council to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those
uses permitted in the I -1 district generally.
2. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
provided such uses shall adhere to applicable requirements in the I -1
district and shall not involve maintenance or servicing of vehicles on
the site.
[h.] i. Other noncommercial uses required for the public welfare as determined
by the Council, including accessory outside storage of materials when
screened from view by an opaque wall.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted).
adoption: Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its
PLANNING COMMISSION E -
R SOLUTION N0. 89 1
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATIVE TO LAND NORTH OF THE
FREEWAY AND EAST OF SHINGLE CREEK, ADJACENT TO FREEWAY BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City Council on December 20, 1982 adopted Resolution No. 82-
255, adopting the updated Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan's Land Use Revisions Map at page 98 (Table 14 and Figure
15) designates the area north of Interstate 694 (area 6a) for light industrial; and
WHEREAS, a rezoning request (Application No. 89003) by the City of
Brooklyn Center has been submitted to rezone 18 parcels comprising approximately 68
acres of land adjacent to Interstate 694 from I -1 (Light Industrial) to C2
(Commerce) to eliminate the possibility of industrial development on these parcels;
and
WHEREAS, the rezoning request is partially inconsistent with Table 14 of
the Plan which recommends only light industrial for part of the area considered for
rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered a Comprehensive Plan
amendment to Table 14 in conjunction with the rezoning application and finds the
rezoning proposal to be in
p the best interests of the community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City ordinances, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on March 2, 1989 to consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory
Commission to recommend to the City Council, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City
Ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) be amended
to allow commercial and service /office development in the area north of Interstate
94 and east of Shingle Creek (adjacent to Freeway Boulevard, area 6a of Table 14)
based upon the following findings:
1. Commercial and service /office development has already taken place in
this area and has been acknowledged under the existing I -1 zoning.
g
2. It is appropriate now to ratify the trend toward commercial
development near the Interstate by rezoning a number of parcels to C2.
Such a rezoning, however, is not strictly consistent with the Plan
recommendation for land north of the Interstate to be developed light
industrial.
3. Traffic impact in this area will not be adversely affected by such an
` amendment and this amendment has no adverse effect on any Metropolitan
` systems.
_ 4. Such a Comprehensive Plan amendment is in the best interests of the
community, given the above considerations.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisor Commission
Y g Y
to recommend to the City Council that the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan be
revised to read as follows:
No. 6a of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding
the Land Use Revisions Map be changed from "light industrial" to
"light industrial, commercial and service /office."
Date Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Molly Malecki, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Mike Nelson, Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards and Kristen Mann and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
{
Member Wallace Bernards introduced the following resolution and moved its
_ adoption:
PLANNI -
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0. 89 2
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
APPLICATION NO. 89003 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center
proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce) of 67.73 acres of land
lying near Interstate 694 between Shingle Creek and Highway 100 /Humboldt Avenue
North; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on
January 26, 1989 and concluded it on March 2, 1989 when testimony regarding the
request was taken; and
WHEREAS, the Commission on March 2, 1989 considered and recommended by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1, an amendment to the Brooklyn Center
Comprehensive Plan allowing for light industrial, commercial and service /office
development over that part of the area north of Interstate 694.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory
Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 89003 submitted by
the City of Brooklyn Center be approved in consideration of the following:
1. The proposed C2 zoning is consistent with the Brooklyn Center
Comprehensive Plan, in light of the amendment proposed in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -1.
2. Existing and proposed development of the parcels to be rezoned is
consistent with the C2 zoning designation and in many cases would be
inconsistent with the I -1 zoning designation as the I -1 district is
amended to exclude certain commercial uses, such as convenience food
restaurants, transient lodging and bowling alleys.
3• It is appropriate to ratify the trend of a commercial, as opposed to
industrial, development adjacent to Interstate 694 because the
Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange has increased the visibility and
accessibility of parcels near the Interstate and made them much more
appropriate for commercial development.
4. The proposed C2 zoning is consistent with and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications.
5. A permitted use in the C2 zoning district can be contemplated for
development of the subject property.
6. The property in question will bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions of the C2 zoning district.
7. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets
the guidelines for evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of
the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -2
Date Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Kristen Mann and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Mike Nelson, Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards and Kristen Mann and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
L_
�I ri 1.Lll r �r ONY,SI I,�N er�O i 3A I L IZ7i ✓ lll'• I -$
fl di
y
�(
-I[
C\j
u 1 . 4;r'�"� � [ � ., .- ,- � `�7�' if .� r•- -y{
F
cm
1 _
t
�1
-
4
r r
I
/�
�, �� I f t t � , �4ti � I tf I. E _N t �' � I i � ; � �)� I - ;,t: I �� ti � �• ��
l
�rJt
7T _..
I f
Jf r
to
\\ —
.w
�x .. � {_ � tam ". � ) i , r ' \i 'i '—� �; �� - ,-.., •, � ..— �(/�
ll:„�
il L V � i :^ � �. y �'�.. l ❑
7
TABLE 14
Land Use Plan Revisions
Location
Number Recommended Land Use
la. Mid - Density Residential or Public Land
lb. Mid - Density Residential
2. Single - Family Residential
3• Commercial Retail
4. Commercial Retail
5• Mid- Density Residential
6a. Light Industrial, Service /Office and Commercial
6b. Light Industrial
6c. Mid- Density Residential
7a. Single - Family Residential
7b. Public Open Space
8. Multiple - Family Residential
9• Commercial /Retail
10. Commercial /Retail
11. Mixed Use Development (Including High - Density, High -Rise
Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce)
12. Mid - Density Residential /High Density Residential
13. Mid- Density Residential
14. Single- or Two - Family Residential
15. Public Open Space
16. Public Open Space
17. Mid- Density Residential
18. Light Industrial
19. Commercial
20. Low - Density Residential
21. Service /Office
22. Low - Density Residential
2 3. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
24. Service /Office
25. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
26. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
27. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
28. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential
29. Commercial Retail
30 Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
31. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
32. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
33. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
34. Mid- Density Residential
35. Commercial Retail
36. Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office
37. Mid- Density Residential
38. Single- Family Residential
39. Service /Office
40. Commercial Retail
41. Service /Office
42. Mid- Density Residential
98
south lot lines of the properties. Mr. Saari indicated that it was
the property owner to the south.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There being no other comments from those present, there was a
motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90001 (Duane Saari)
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
recommend approval of Application No. 90001, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The new legal descriptions and necessary deeds for
transfer of property shall be filed with the titles to
the property at the County.
Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander,
Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
D ISCUSSION ITEMS
a) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Uses Permitted in the C1, C2 and
I -1 Districts and Rezoning Application No. 89003
i The Secretary then introduced a discussion item with the Planning
Commission regarding the City initiated rezoning under Application
No. 89003 and a companion zoning ordinance amendment which would
eliminate some commercial uses from the I -1 zone. The Secretary
explained that the City Attorney had had concerns regarding the
ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission in March
Of 1989. He stated that the staff was also working on a PUD
ordinance at the time and that it was decided to hold off the
consideration on the amendment to the I -1 zone until the PUD
ordinance was in effect. The Secretary added that the PUD
ordinance is now effective and that it is, therefore, appropriate
to recommend consideration of the rezoning and ordinance amendment.
He stated that it was appropriate at this time to reaffirm the
actions on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning which
were taken under Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 and 89 -2.
The Secretary then reviewed the background of the rezoning
application which had been initiated by the City. He stated that
one of the reasons the rezoning was initiated was because the owner
of some of the industrial land north of the Freeway, Richardson and
Sons, began marketing some of their parcels for sale about two
years ago and that some of the parties who were interested in those
parcels would have made use of them for convenience food
restaurants and budget hotels. The Secretary stated that staff did
not believe those sorts of uses were appropriate in the I -1 zone,
especially in the area north of Freeway Boulevard and were not in
3 -1 -90
2
keeping with the conceptual plans put forth by the owner over the
years. The Secretary went on to explain that the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to the I -1 district was amended twice in the past to
allow more commercial uses by special use permit in the I -1 zone.
He stated that along with those uses, there were standards added to
the I -1 zone which were to apply to those commercial uses, namely,
that the uses would be of comparable intensity and compatible with
existing I -1 uses and other uses allowed in the I -1 zone generally.
He explained that the City, at the time it adopted these
ordinances, thought it had control over development through its
ability to deny a special use permit. He pointed out, however,
that recent history of legal cases showed that cities have very
little ability to deny a special use permit. He stated that the
burden of proof has fallen on the City rather than on the
developer. Because of this, staff became concerned when some
commercial uses were proposed for the I -1 zone a year and a half
ago. Therefore, staff initiated the rezoning application and an
ordinance amendment to eliminate some commercial uses from the I -1
zone. The Secretary then showed the Commission a transparency of
the areas that were affected by the rezoning application, including
the Holiday Inn and the La Casita restaurant and parcels between
the freeway and Freeway Boulevard east of Shingle Creek Parkway.
He added that there were parcels south of the freeway and east of
Shingle Creek Parkway which would also be included in the rezoning.
He pointed out that the uses in this area are generally commercial
and that none of them would become nonconforming by being rezoned
to C2.
The Secretary then explained the action that had been taken in
March of 1989 to recommend a Comprehensive Plan amendment along
with an ordinance amendment. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their
review and comment and that the Met Council had no objection to the
Plan amendment.
The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission the contents of a
staff memo on the draft ordinance amendment before the Planning
Commission. (See memorandum attached). The Secretary explained
that the previous ordinance amendment had called for allowing
certain single tenant retailers selling large or expensive items to
be allowed by special use permit. He stated that the City Attorney
ha d expressed d rese
p rvations about limiting retail establishments to
only single tenant establishments and those selling certain
products. He stated that the land use impacts could really not be
differentiated from other types of establishments. The Secretary
pointed out that the draft ordinance amendment would eliminate
retail sales as a principal use in the I -1 zone, but that retail
sales as an accessory use to a manufacturing, wholesaling, or
warehousing type use would s
g yp d till be allowed by special use P ermit.
He stated that the Schmitt Music operation would still be
considered a conforming use since its retail operation is more of
an incidental part of the use of the building rather than the
3 -1 -90
3
principal use. He then reviewed with the Commission uses to be
eliminated from the I -1 zone and others to be added by special use
permit.
Commissioner Bernards asked about projected traffic impact as a
result of the ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that staff
do not envision more traffic than was projected by the 1985 Short -
Elliott (SEH) Traffic Study of the Industrial Park and the
Brookdale area. He stated that the study had projected peak hour
traffic that would result from maximum development of this area.
He stated that there may have to be some modifications to certain
intersections if the traffic levels increase, but that these
modifications were foreseen by the traffic study. The Planner
indicated that the draft ordinance amendment would make the I -1
zone more of an employment zone rather than a zone open for
commerce. He stated that the likely effect of this restriction
would be to perhaps increase the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour
traffic along Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Freeway Boulevard,
but that it would reduce the 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. traffic in that area
from what it might otherwise be.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether any existing uses in the
Industrial Park would become nonconforming as a result of the
ordinance amendment. The Secretary responded in the negative.
The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it reaffirm the
actions to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning and also
to act on the draft ordinance amendment. He added that there would
be no nonconforming uses in the area to be rezoned to C2.
ACTION REAFFIRMING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
APPLICATION NO. 89003 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 89 -1 AND
89 -2)
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to
reaffirm the Planning Commission's action on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 and
also to reaffirm the rezoning recommendation contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -2. Voting in favor: Chairperson
Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING USES PERMITTED IN
THE C1, C2 AND I -1 ZONING DISTRICTS
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to
recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding uses
permitted in the C1, C2 and I -1 zoning districts, especially uses
allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zone. (See draft
ordinance attached). Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
3 -1 -90 4
_
t
.� - -___----- -- _ --- _ -- - -
t _____ -- __ __ __ __ _
- _ :.k .r.1, __ -� i__
_
1
1
___-
jot
_ -__ -__- = -_
- - 'ti
r __ __ _
_ __ _ ___ ___ __ ___ __ --_= _ __ " -- - _ - - --
- _ -
----------- : -_ - _ __ ___ __ _ _ __ _ __ - _=
`- - `
_
--
- ------- ---- -- - - -- - - -------------- --- -- -- -
-r -_= - - - --- -
- - - -- --
-
-
:
-
Rte= y
AM F
,
�r
—T�_ ♦: . _.: -v` ..� ;`,: � � `�/ _`__ -_ _ _ }I � j� � �/ ftavIIx�i k ?cn
_
_. { :.
4 -
i _ - _ - _ - � � �C j •�
z
>
..-. azns•... at -.,.� �v l �� z• _ z1 � �i :�._.�_...._ -__ "' _ ---- :..._. -,---
2 _
- _ , ---r l -; CIA--
mT AND
_ ,. _ �' 1 '�i95�; �Y - _ _ r h t ^• : tiW1 J t /'T 'i.,:.
_
2
_
_ - Af q —
l�
�t i -= i - � - �`--�- . S __r � -_ r =.• _ _ -_ .`' � 1yr�: Gwn. O�.t rr X 3kO+�irN
f , � I : � .. � i i... 1 _l��}.l ,. _ _ _ � rtYK _'•'• j(¢�'�� Z. ttL � � -
t 4'
z
r
l `
fi= METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291 -6359
March 13, 1989
Ronald A. Warren
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: City of Brooklyn Center
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Light Industrial to Office /Commercial
Metropolitan Council District 10
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 11480 -3
Dear Mr. Warren:
The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the city's comprehensive plan
amendment received by the Council on March 6, 1989• We have determined
that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the
metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment
into effect immediately.
Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and plans
in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will
waive further review and comment on this amendment.
The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission
form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files.
This concludes the Council's review.
Sincerely,
Steve Keefe
Chair
SK:tf
cc: John Evans, Metropolitan Council District 10
John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff
Tori Flood, Metropolitan Council Staff
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
day of , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall,
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding permitted and special uses in the C1, C2, and
I -1 zoning districts.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES IN THE C1, C2 AND
I -1 ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS;
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City
of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses.
w. Leasing offices, provided there is no storage
or display of products on the use site.
Section 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses.
d. Service /office uses described in Subsection
(b) through (u) and Subsection (w) of Section
35 -320.
Section 35 -330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK.
1. Permitted Uses.
C. The following service activities:
[5. Automobile and truck rental and leasing]
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Special Uses
[c. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35-
414), motor vehicle repair and auto washes
provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3
district, including abutment at a street line;
trailer rental in conjunction with these uses,
provided that there is adequate trailer
parking space.]
[d] c. Retail sales of products, manufactured,
processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the
use site.
Accessory off -site parking not located on the
same property with the principal use, subject
to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
[f] e. Those commercial developments which, in each
specific case, are demonstrated to the City
Council to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land
uses as well as with those uses permitted
in the I -1 district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land
uses as well as to those uses permitted
in the I -1 district generally.
3. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1
district land uses with respect to
activity levels.
4. Planned and designed to assure that
generated traffic will be within the
capacity of available public facilities
and will not have an adverse impact upon
the industrial park or the community.
[Subsection 1 (a) through 1(j); 3 (c) ; 3 (d);
and 3 (g) through 3 (j) . ) and which are described in Section 35 -322
Subsection 1 d, e (subparts 1 -6), f, (subparts 2 and 3), q through
1, 3 m and 3 p Such commercial developments shall be subject to
I -1 district requirements of Section 35 -400 and 35 -413 and shall
otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use
classification which the proposed development represents.
ORDINANCE NO.
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:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new
matter.)
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255
(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND NORTH OF THE
FREEWAY AND EAST OF SHINGLE CREEK, ADJACENT TO FREEWAY
BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City Council on December 20, 1982 adopted
Resolution No. 82 -255 adopting the updated Brooklyn Center
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan's Land Use Revisions Map at page 98
(Table 14 and Figure 15) designates the area north of Interstate 94
(area 6a) for light industrial; and
WHEREAS, a rezoning request (Application No. 89003) by
the City of Brooklyn Center has been submitted to rezone 18 parcels
comprising approximately 68 acres of land adjacent to Interstate 94
from I -1 (Light Industrial) to C2 (Commerce) to eliminate the
possibility of industrial development on these parcels; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning request is partially inconsistent
with Table 14 of the Plan which recommends only light industrial
for part of the area considered for rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to Table 14 in conjunction with the
rezoning application and finds the rezoning proposal to be in the
best interests of the community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City
ordinances, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March
2, 1989 to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 on March 2, 1989 and reaffirmed its
action on March 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment was
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Council
has indicated that the proposed amendment does not conflict with
regional systems plans, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed
Plan amendment at its March 12, 1990 regular meeting and finds that
the Plan amendment and accompanying rezoning proposal are in the
best interests of the community.
RESOLUTION NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City
ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive
Plan) is hereby amended to allow commercial and service /office
development in the area north of Interstate 94 and east of Shingle
Creek (adjacent to Freeway Boulevard, area 6a of Table 14) based
upon the following findings:
1. Commercial and service /office development has
already taken place in this area and has been
acknowledged under the existing I -1 zoning.
2. It is appropriate now to ratify the trend toward
commercial development near the Interstate by
rezoning a number of parcels to C2. Such a
rezoning, however, is not strictly consistent with
the Plan recommendation for land north of the
Interstate to be developed light industrial.
3. Traffic impact in this area will not be adversely
affected by such an amendment and this amendment
has no adverse effect on any Metropolitan systems.
4. Such a Comprehensive Plan amendment is in the best
interests of the community, given the above
considerations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan be
revised as follows:
No. 6a of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding the Land Use Revisions Map be changed from
"light industrial" to "light industrial, commercial and
service /office.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89003
SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of
Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2
(Commerce) 67.73 acres of land lying near Interstate 94 between
Shingle Creek and Highway 100 /Humboldt Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called
public hearing on January 26, 1989 and concluded it on March 2,
1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and
WHEREAS, the Commission on March 2, 1989 considered and
recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1, an
amendment to the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan allowing for
light industrial, commercial and service /office development over
that part of the area north of Interstate 94 and reaffirmed its
action on March 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the rezoning
proposal at its March 12, 1990 regular meeting and finds that the
rezoning proposal is in the best interests of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 89003 submitted by the
City of Brooklyn Center is hereby approved in consideration of the
following:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, in light of the
amendment proposed in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 89 -1.
2. Existing and proposed development of the parcels to
be rezoned is consistent with the C2 zoning
designation and in many cases would be inconsistent
with the -
I -1 zoning designation as the I-1 district
is amended to exclude certain commercial uses, such
as convenience food restaurants, transient lodging
and bowling alleys.
3. It is appropriate to ratify the trend of
commercial, as opposed to industrial, development
adjacent to Interstate 94 because the Shingle Creek
Parkway Interchange has increased the visibility
and accessibility of parcels near the Interstate
and made them much more appropriate for commercial
development.
RESOLUTION NO.
4. The proposed C2 zoning is consistent with and
compatible with surrounding land use
classifications.
5. Permitted uses in the C2 zoning district can be
contemplated for development of the subject
property.
6. The property in question will bear fully the
ordinance development restrictions of the C2 zoning
district.
7. In light of the above, it is believed that the
proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for
evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of
the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance.
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.
IDb[
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255
(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND NORTH OF THE
FREEWAY AND EAST OF SHINGLE CREEK, ADJACENT TO FREEWAY
BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City Council on December 20, 1982 adopted
Resolution No. 82 -255, adopting the updated Brooklyn Center
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan's Land Use Revisions Map at page 98
(Table 14 and Figure 15) designates the area north of Interstate 94
(area 6a) for light industrial; and
WHEREAS, a rezoning request (Application No. 89003) by
the City of Brooklyn Center has been submitted to rezone 18 parcels
comprising approximately 68 acres of land adjacent to Interstate 94
from I -1 (Light Industrial) to C2 (Commerce) to eliminate the
possibility of industrial development on these parcels; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning request is partially inconsistent
with Table 14 of the Plan which recommends only light industrial
for part of the area considered for rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to Table 14 in conjunction with the
rezoning application and finds the rezoning proposal to be in the
best interests of the community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City
ordinances, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March
2, 1989 to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 on March 2, 1989 and reaffirmed its
action on March 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment was
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Council
has indicated that the proposed amendment does not conflict with
regional systems plans, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed
Plan amendment at its March 12, 1990 regular meeting and finds that
the Plan amendment and accompanying rezoning proposal are in the
best interests of the community.
RESOLUTION NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City
ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive
Plan) is hereby amended to allow commercial and service /office
development in the area north of Interstate 94 and east of Shingle
Creek (adjacent to Freeway Boulevard, area 6a of Table 14) based
upon the following findings:
1. Commercial and service /office development has
already taken place in this area and has been
acknowledged under the existing I -1 zoning.
2. It is appropriate now to ratify the trend toward
commercial development near the Interstate by
rezoning a number of parcels to C2. Such a
rezoning, however, is not strictly consistent with
the Plan recommendation for land north of the
Interstate to be developed light industrial.
3. Traffic impact in this area will not be adversely
affected by such an amendment and this amendment
has no adverse effect on any Metropolitan systems.
4. Such a Comprehensive Plan amendment is in the best
interests of the community, given the above
considerations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan be
revised as follows:
No. 6a of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding the Land Use Revisions Map be changed from
"light industrial" to "light industrial, commercial and
service /office.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
/Ob Z
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89003
SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of
Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2
(Commerce) 67.73 acres of land lying near Interstate 94 between
Shingle Creek and Highway 100 /Humboldt Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called
public hearing on January 26, 1989 and concluded it on March 2,
1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and
WHEREAS, the Commission on March 2, 1989 considered and
recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1, an
amendment to the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan allowing for
light industrial, commercial and service /office development over
that part of the area north of Interstate 94 and reaffirmed its
action on March 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the rezoning
proposal at its March 12, 1990 regular meeting and finds that the
rezoning proposal is in the best interests of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 89003 submitted by the
City of Brooklyn Center is hereby approved in consideration of the
following:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, in light of the
amendment proposed in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 89 -1.
2. Existing and proposed development of the parcels to
be rezoned is consistent with the C2 zoning
designation and in many cases would be inconsistent
with the I -1 zoning designation as the I -1 district
is amended to exclude certain commercial uses, such
as convenience food restaurants, transient lodging
and bowling alleys.
3. It is appropriate to ratify the trend of
commercial, as opposed to industrial, development
adjacent to Interstate 94 because the Shingle Creek
Parkway Interchange has increased the visibility
and accessibility of parcels near the Interstate
and made them much more appropriate for commercial
development.
RESOLUTION NO.
4. The proposed C2 zoning is consistent with and
compatible with surrounding land use
classifications.
5. Permitted uses in the C2 zoning district can be
contemplated for development of the subject
property.
6. The property in question will bear fully the
ordinance development restrictions of the C2 zoning
district.
7. In light of the above, it is believed that the
proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for
evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of
the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
day of , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall,
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding permitted and special uses in the C1, C2, and
I -1 zoning districts.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES IN THE C1, C2 AND
I -1 ZOPIIP DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS;
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City
of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses.
W. Leasing offices, provided there is no storage
or display of products on the use site
Section 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT.
1. Pe rmitted Uses.
d. Service /office uses described in Subsection
(b) through (u) and Subsection (w) of Section
35 -320.
Section 35 -330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK.
1. Permitted Uses.
C. The following service activities:
[5. Automobile and truck rental and leasing]
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Special Uses
[c. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35-
414), motor vehicle repair and auto washes
provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3
district, including abutment at a street line;
trailer rental in conjunction with these uses,
provided that there is adequate trailer
parking space.]
[d] c. Retail sales of products, manufactured,
processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the
use site.
[e] d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the
same property with the principal use, subject
to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
[f] e_ Those commercial developments which, in each
specific case, are demonstrated to the City
Council to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land
uses as well as with those uses permitted
in the I -1 district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land
uses as well as to those uses permitted
in the I -1 district generally.
3. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1
district land uses with respect to
activity levels.
4. Planned and designed to assure that
generated traffic will be within the
capacity of available public facilities
and will not have an adverse impact upon
the industrial park or the community.
[Subsection 1 (a) through 1(j); 3 (c) ; 3 (d);
and 3 (q) through 3 (j).] and which are described in Section 35 -322
Subsectio 1 d, e (subparts 1 -6) , f, (subparts 2 and 3 , g through
1_L 3 and 3 p. Such commercial developments shall be subject to
I -1 district requirements of Section 35 -400 and 35 -413 and shall
otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use
classification which the proposed development represents.
ORDINANCE NO.
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:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new
matter.)
fay
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.
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; Protect 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.
RESOLUTION NO.
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 Protect 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.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/ 12/ 90
Agenda Item Number 13a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
e IT DESCRIPTION:
TRANSPORTATION SURVEY
DEPT. APPROVAL:
(� Personnel Coordinator
Signature - itle
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
Attached is the final draft of a transportation survey prepared by the Brooklyn Center human rights
and resources commission with the assistance of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council
• (NWHHSC). Any further adjustments to the survey may be made when a pretest of the survey is
conducted. The survey is expected to be administered during the month of April.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review and comment on the transportation survey
prepared by the human rights and resources commission.
s
a
4
3''x•90
Brooklyn Center Transportation Needs Assessment
Hello. My name is (First name only). 1 am a volunteer calling on behalf of
the City of Brooklyn Center. I need to speak to someone 18 years or older
(or is your Mom or Dad home ?).
The Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission is interested in
how Brooklyn Center residents get to work, school, shopping centers, and
other places.
This survey will only take a few minutes of your time and will help Brooklyn
Center better identify the transportation needs of the community.
QUESTION #1 First, please tell me do you live within the Brooklyn Center
boundaries?
Yes 1
No 2 IF NO, DO NOT CONTINUE SURVEY
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #2 What is the street intersection nearest your home?
ON ANSWER SHEET RECORD NEAREST INTERSECTION. WRITE COMPLETE STREET NAMES
AND USE ST., PL., AVE., DR., N., S., ETC.
QUESTION #3 Have you ever, even once, used public transportation, such as
the MTC bus or Metro Mobility, while living at your current
address?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
SERIES: EMPLOYMENT
Next, I would like to ask you a short series of questions related to
employment.
QUESTION #4 Do you work outside the home?
Yes 1
No, work at home 2
No, retired 3 IF NO, SKIP TO NEXT SERIES
No, other 4 QUESTION #11, PAGE 3
DK 88
RA 99
1
s� h
QUESTION #5 in what community do you work?
Brooklyn Center 1
Brooklyn Park 2
Champlin 3
Crystal 4
Robbinsdale 5
Downtown Mpls 6
Downtown St. Paul 7
Other 8
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #6 How do you usually get to work?
PROMPT: May use one or two response categories as prompts. Do
not read entire list.
Take the bus or other forms of 1 GO TO QUESTION #8
public transportation
Drive a car by myself 2
Drive /ride with others in car 3
Park and ride 4
Walk 5
Ride bicycle 6
Ride motorcycle 7
Other 8
DK 88
RA 99
Different people have different reasons for not travelling to work by bus or
other public transportation.
QUESTION #7 Please tell me what is the most important reason why you do not
travel to work by bus or other public transportation more often?
DO NOT READ LIST
Have car available, no need to 1
Prefer to drive 2
Prefer to carpool 3
Service not frequent enough 4
Bus stop too far from home 5
Too many transfers required 6
Buses don't run on schedule 7
Fares are too high 8
Waiting conditions at stops bad 9
Work hours different from bus hours 10
Other 11
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #8 What are your standard work hours? At what time do you usually
start work?
WRITE IN RESPONSE GIVEN - INCLUDE AM OR PM
2
QUESTION #9 At what time do you usually finish work?
WRITE IN RESPONSE GIVEN - INCLUDE AM OR PM
QUESTION #10 is the time at which you begin or end your work flexible?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
SERIES: CHILDREN
The next series of questions deals with how parents or family members
transport their children from one place to another. If you have no children
in your household, we will skip this series of questions.
Would you please tell me for each age category how many children, if any,
live in your household on a regular basis?
INDICATE NUMBER OF CHILDREN FOR EACH AGE GROUP ON SPACE PROVIDED.
IF NO CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD, PUT ZEROS IN EACH SPACE AND DO NOT ASK ANY
AGE GROUP CATEGORIES. SKIP TO NEXT SERIES, QUESTION #20, PAGE 8
QUESTION #11 0 - 5 years, preschool
IF 0 CHILDREN, SKIP TO QUESTION #17, PAGE 4
QUESTION #12 Kindergarten - sixth grade IF 0 CHILDREN,
SKIP TO NEXT SERIES
*QUESTION #13 Seventh - ninth grade QUESTION #20, PAGE 8
QUESTION #14 Tenth - twelfth grade
QUESTION #15 How do you usually take your preschool child (or
children) to daycare or another day program?
Do not have child in program outside home 1
Take the bus or other forms of 2
public transportation
Drive a car by myself 3
Drive /ride with others in car 4
Park and ride 5
Walk 6
Ride bicycle 7
Ride motorcycle g
Other 9
DK 88
RA 99
3
{ 'ae
lx A n J
QUESTION #16 Have you ever, in the last sixth months, experienced a
problem in trying to get your child (or children) to
daycare or another day program in which you had to use
public transportation?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #17 Does your child's school provide transportation during the
school year for your child (or children)?
Yes 1 IF YES, GO TO QUESTION #20, PAGE 5
No 2
DK 3
RA 4
QUESTION #18 How does your child (or children) usually get to school?
PROMPT: For example, do they usually walk to school?
Walks to school 1
Driven by family 2
Rides public bus 3
Rides a bike /scooter 4
Carpool 5
Ccmbination 6
Other 7
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #19 How does your child (or children) get to school when the
temperature is very cold?
PROMPT: For example, do they usually walk to school?
Walks to school 1
Driven by family 2
Rides public bus 3
Rides a bike /scooter 4
Carpool 5
Carib i nat i on 6
Other 7
DK 88
RA 99
SERIES: SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
The next series of question deals with transportation of persons who may
have special transportation needs, such as seniors and persons with
disabilities.
QUESTION #20 Do you or anyone in your household have special
transportation needs?
Yes 1
No 2 IF NO, SKIP TO NEXT SERIES
GO TO QUESTION #25, PAGE 6
4
DV
This series will ask questions specific about the person or persons who
require special transportation. If you feel uncomfortable answering any
particular question, we may skip that one and go to the next question.
QUESTION #21 Are you or anyone in your household able to drive but only
under certain conditions, such as only during the day or
only during the summer?
Yes, only during the day 1
Yes, only during summer 2
Yes, other 3
No 4
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #22 Do you or anyone in your household need to use a wheelchair
when traveling outside your home?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #23 Do you or anyone in your household need assistance from a
driver when entering or leaving a vehicle?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #24 What is your one most reliable method of transportation?
Do not have a reliable method 1
Drive myself 2
Family or friends drive 3
Metro Mobility 4
Senior transportation 5
Public bus g
Walk 7
Other 8
DK 88
RA 99
5
jJ
a
SERIES: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The city of Brooklyn Center wants to know what residents think are important
aspects of a transportation program, such as the location of pickup, cost,
schedule, etc. A dial -a -ride program is currently under consideration in
Brooklyn Center. This program would provide door -to -door rides under a
shared ride concept.
QUESTION #25 Do you think any members of your household, either adults
or children, would make use of this transportation program
if offered by the city ?
Yes 1
No 2 IF NO, GO TO NEXT SERIES
Depends 3 QUESTION #40, PAGE 8
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #26 Would you be willing and able to walk, up to a block, to a
designated pickup site to use this service?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #27 1 will now list some possible fares for a dial -a -ride
service. Please tell me, if you were to use this service,
what would be the highest adult fare you would consider
reasonable for a one -way trip?
$2.00 1 READ LIST UNTIL RESPONSE GIVEN
$1.50 2
$1.25 3
$1.00 4
$0.50 5
Other 6
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #28 Would you or someone from your household use a dial -a -ride
service if it operated on the weekend, that is, Saturday
and Sunday?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
6
i
g
A transportation program can be used for a variety of purposes. How likely
would you be to use a dial -a -ride program to get to each of the following
destinations, very likely, somewhat likely, or not very likely?
QUESTION #29 Shopping centers or grocery stores
Very l 1
y ke y 1 PROMPT: Read response categories
Sanewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK gg
RA gg
QUESTION #30 Medical appointments
Very likely 1 PROMPT: Read response categories
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK gg
RA gg
QUESTION #31 Employment or job training opportunities
Very likely 1 PROMPT: Read response categories
Somewhat likely 2 if needed
Not very likely 3
DK gg
RA gg
QUESTION #32 Appointments with social service agencies
Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK gg
RA 99
QUESTION #33 Social activities, such as visiting friends
Very likely 1
Samewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK gg
RA gg
QUESTION #34 Educational opportunities for adults in your household
Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK gg
RA gg
QUESTION #35 Recreational activities
Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK gg
RA gg
7
K
i M
QUESTION #36 Religious services�
Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK 88
RA gg
QUESTION #37 Congregate dining for seniors
Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK 88
RA gg
QUESTION #38 Activities for seniors
Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK 88
RA gg
QUESTION #39 Transport children to day care, school or other programs
Very likely 1
Somewhat likely 2
Not very likely 3
DK 88
. RA gg
SERIES: COMMUNICATION
Good communication between the City of Brooklyn Center and the people who
live there is essential to a successful public transportation program as
well as many of the other services offered by the city. The following
questions relate to our current communication program.
QUESTION #40 Do you feel well informed about city business and
activities?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 88
RA 99
QUESTION #41 Is the information you currently receive about city
activities, not enough information, just right, or too much
information?
Not enough information 1
Just right 2
Too much information 3
DK 88
RA gg
8
r ti
QUESTION #42 What particular city issue or activity is the most
interesting to you?
WRITE SHORT PHRASE ON SPACE PROVIDED
IF NO ANSWER GIVEN, WRITE NONE, DK, OR RA AS APPROPRIATE
QUESTION #43 if the city wanted to improve how it communicates with its
residents, would you support or not support such an
actia&b^ i ty?
Support 1
Not support 2
DK 88
RA 99
SERIES: DEMOGRAPHICS
Now, I would like to ask you a few additional questions about your
household.
QUESTION #44 Including yourself, how many people regularly live in your
household?
WRITE NUMBER ON SPACE PROVIDED
QUESTION #45 How many persons in your household are 65 years or older?
WRITE NUMBER ON SPACE PROVIDED
QUESTION #46 Gender
GUESS - DO NOT ASK IF UNSURE - INDICATE DK
Male 1
Female 2
DK 88
QUESTION #47 How many motor vehicles are owned or operated by your
household, including cars, vans, trucks, motorcycles, etc.?
WRITE NUMBER ON SPACE PROVIDED
QUESTION #48 Next, I will read different income levels. Would you
estimate your gross household income before taxes as:
READ LIST UNTIL RESPONSE IS GIVEN
Less than 10,000 1
$10,001 - $15,000 2
$15,001 - $20,000 3
$20,001 - $30,000 4
$30,001 - $40,000 5
$40,001 - $50,000 6
Over $50,001 7
DK 88
RA 99
The City of Brooklyn Center will be using the grouped results of this survey
to assist them in planning a transportation program. If you have any
questions or would like more information, please contact Geralyn Barone,
City of Brooklyn Center, 561 -5440. Thank you for your help and for your
time.
' 9
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/
Agenda Item Number 13b
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO INSTALL LIGHTS ON THE PATH TO
THE LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
yjou Personnel Coordinator
Sign ure - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: a
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached �)
At its February 15, 1990, meeting, the Brooklyn Center park and recreation commission recommended
that the city council authorize installation of lights on the path to the Little League field (field
nearest Centerbrook Golf Course). The commission was concerned about the safety of those using the
path. A copy of the commission's meeting minutes are attached for your information.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Consider the park and recreation commission's
recommendation to install lights on the path to the Little League field.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
director of recreation presented a comparison of 1986 projections
to actual experience for Centerbrook Golf Course, which provided
answers to many of the questions the commissioners had.
Chairman Sorenson questioned some of the information published in
the local newspaper regarding the Joslyn site. In particular, the
article projected a 1991 -1992 estimated project timeline, and
Chairman Sorenson said he thought the time involved would be longer
term than this. Councilmember Pedlar said he did not recall any
discussion by the city council on the timeframes suggested in the
newspaper. The director of recreation noted the City received a
letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the land
may be useable as a recreation site. Commissioner Sorenson asked
if there is anything the commission wishes to do to set the record
straight, and after brief discussion, the commission agreed that no
further action would be necessary at this time. Commissioner
Russell said he has heard favorable reactions to the proposal.
Chairman Sorenson requested the priorities established by the city
council for 1990 be placed as a discussion item on the March park
and recreation commission agenda.
STATUS REPORT ON COMMISSION PLAN OF ACTION
The director of recreation reviewed a number of items funded in the
1990 budget. Many of these items appear in the commission's plan
of action.
Commissioner Shinnick noted there is a dark spot on the path
approaching the Little League field which is closest to the golf
course. The director of recreation said funds are not allocated in
the 1990 budget to pay for any additional lighting. After some
discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Shinnick and
seconded by Commissioner Pollock to recommend to the city council
that a security light be placed on the path to the Little League
field near the golf course. The motion passed.
Chairman Sorenson asked commissioners to review the plan of action
and to assign a timetable to those items designated as pending or
not planned. He suggested that items be classified as those to be
done in the next year, those to be completed in two to three years,
and those to be done in a longer range time period. Councilmember
Pedlar suggested that if an item affects safety or security of
residents, it should be a high priority.
Councilmember Pedlar said he met with someone from Hennepin County
to discuss what the county is doing with regard to parks. There
was some discussion on the county's regional park and the status of
it
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center park and recreation commission recessed at 8:30
p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Councilmember Pedlar left the
• 2/20/90 -2-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meetin Date 3/12/90
Agenda Item Number 13c,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PERSONNEL REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSING DEPARTMENT
DEPT. APPROVAL'
- ---- City Assessor
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
Please refer to attached memo for background and benefits of this proposal.
• REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Request approval of this proposal and authorization for staff to implement.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Mark P. Parish, City Assessorj'V,!f,i
V
DATE: March 8, 1990
RE: Assessing Personnel Request
PROPOSAL:
To allow the Assessor to assign Assessment Technicians to
field data collection duties. The duties would consist primarily
of reappraisal inspections of residential properties. While
performing these tasks, the Techs would be compensated at a
higher rate of pay than their normal rate. The proposed rate is
$13.97 per hour.
HISTORY:
For a number of years, this department has had one full -time
appraiser responsible for residential properties. The increase
in computerization and use of temporary employees had enabled us
to meet our goals and statutory responsibilities. However, the
use of temporary employees presents a number of problems:
1) Availability. Unfortunately, there is no school for
appraisal trainees, per se. The ideal candidate would have a
background in real estate, construction, property tax
administration, a high degree of integrity, and above average
communication skills. We have been unable to locate and attract
individuals of this type to a temporary position. Therefore, a
number of compromises must be made in the selection process.
2) Confidence. The majority of the questions raised by the
public relate to assessment law or current community issues.
While it is possible to train the temporary employees in data
collection, it is not feasible to have them deal with these
issues. A mishandled question undermines public confidence in
the City, not just of these employees.
3) Accuracy. There have been instances in the past years
where significant errors and omissions have been made by the
trainees. While we do quality control through edits, review, and
random monitoring, it is impossible to review each property's
data. To sacrifice quality for quantity does nothing but damage
the system.
4) Flexibility. In addition to residential reinspections,
we occasionally need short -term assistance on other projects.
Due to the limited employment term, the time constraints on
training, and the preceding issues, we are unable to use the
temporary employees as effectively as we will be able to use the
Technicians.
BENEFITS:
1) Availability. The Techs have available time during the
months when our appraisal needs are the greatest. October
through March are intensive "clerical" months. April through
September are less intensive with available time for other
duties.
2) Qualifications. The Technicians have knowledge of the
laws pertaining to assessment, knowledge of the City, knowledge
of real estate, and knowledge of public relations. The training
which would be given in inspection procedures, residential
construction, and market interpretation will provide us with
more qualified employees who can produce a superior product.
3) Accuracy. These employees have demonstrated their
abilities to produce an accurate product. Because they are
permanent employees, I believe they will be motivated to continue
this. While we will continue quality control, it is believed the
assessment will be of higher quality through this proposal.
4) Quantity. In past years, the Appraiser has spent the
majority of his time monitoring and directing the temporary
employees. This proposal would allow the Appraiser to spend
more time working on the reinspections, thereby increasing our
efficiency.
5) Flexibility. Because the Technicians have a broad
base of knowledge which would be further broadened, they would be
available for short -term assistance on other appraisal projects.
This tool will allow our office to be more effective and
efficient.
6) Staffing review. While our workload varies throughout
the year, I would like to test shifting of tasks and
responsibilities. This will enable me to determine future
staffing needs to more efficiently meet our goals.
BUDGET IMPACT:
In the 1990 Budget, we had requested an additional
Appraiser, but were denied. Instead, additional funds were
allocated for temporary employees. Of the $27,000 budgeted,
$17,000 would be used for temporary employees for reinspections.
(The remaining $10,000 in this budget item is for our part -time
Data Entry Operator, a year -round position.) Based on
preliminary projections of hours used and duration of this
experiment, the increased personnel costs in 1990 would be no
more than $10,000, a savings of at least $7,000.
CONCLUSION:
I believe this proposal will enable the Assessing
Department to meet our goals and statutory responsibilities. It
will enable me to review our staffing needs to avoid future
inefficiencies. It will result in a higher quality assessment
at a lower cost.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/12/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
LICENSE TO UTILIZE EXPLOSIVES FOR THE HOWE COMPANY
DEPT. APPROVAL:
PO ztt�.. Pa� Administrative Aide
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Section 35 -413.2 of the City Ordinances requires that the utilization of explosives must be licensed by
the City Council. The following items are recommended conditions for the utilization and discharge
of explosives at The Howe Company facility, 4821 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
1. The permit is issued to The Howe Company, 4821 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center,
and is nontransferable.
2. The Howe Company shall continue to use a two - component compound, kinestik, or a similar
two- component compound.
3. The Howe Company shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local legislation
governing the transportation, storage, handling, and detonation of explosives.
4. The Howe Company shall notify the Chief of Police in advance of all blasting operations.
5. City employees shall have the right to inspect upon reasonable notice give to The Howe
Company.
6. Authorization to discharge explosives in the City of Brooklyn Center granted under this
permit shall expire March 27, 1991.
1 recommend approval of the license.
�j
lam/
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 12, 1990:
CIGARETTE - OVER THE COUNTER
F & M Distributors 5951 Earle Brown Dr.
City Clerk
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Blvd.
Applebee's 1347 Brookdale Center
Arby's 1341 Brookdale Center
Bakers Square 5601 Xerxes Ave. N.
Berean Evangelical Free Church 6625 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brook Park Baptist 4801 63rd Ave. N.
Brookdale Assembly of God 6030 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Assembly of God Daycare 6030 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr.
Brooklyn Center Athletic Boosters 5620 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center National Little League 5312 N. Lilac Drive
Brooklyn United Methodist Church 7200 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brooks Food Market 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 N. Lilac Drive
Community Emergency Assistance Program 7231 Brooklyn Blvd.
Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N.
Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive
Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N.
Evergreen Park Elementary School 7020 Dupont Ave. N.
Fanny Farmer Candy Shop 1236 Brookdale Center
Food Express 1131 Brookdale Center
Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. N.
Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd.
House of Hui's 6800 Humboldt Ave. N.
Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Blvd.
La Casita Mexican Restaurant 2101 Freeway Blvd.
Little Brooklyn 6219 Brooklyn Blvd.
Lutheran Church of the Triune God 5827 Humboldt Ave. N.
Neil's Total 1505 69th Ave. N.
New Horizon Day Care Center 6625 Humboldt Ave. N.
New Horizon Nursery School 1200 69th Ave. N.
Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave. N.
Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd.
Northwest Residence 4408 69th Ave. N.
Num Num Foods Brookdale Snack Bar
J. C. Penney 1265 Brookdale Center
Pizza Hut 6000 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Pizza Hut 5806 Xerxes Ave. N.
Que Viet 6100 Brooklyn Blvd.
0 Red Lobster Restaurant 7235 Brooklyn Blvd.
Sears 1297 Brookdale Center
Subway 1960 57th Ave. N.
Superamerica 6545 West River Road
Superamerica 1901 57th Ave. N.
TCBY Yogurt 6034 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Taco Bell 1150 Brookdale Center
Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd.
Willow Lane PTA 7020 Perry Ave. N. 1�
Sanitarian k
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
J. L. Bjorlin Plumbing & Htg. Co. 10701 93rd Ave. N. ��}}
Wenzel Heating & A/C 1955 Shawnee Road
Building Official
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S.
Best Products Co. 5925 Earle Brown Drive
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
J. C. Penney 1265 Brookdale Center
Principal Financial 6160 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Ryan Management 6160 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Ryan Management 6200 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
Consumer Vending 2828 Lyndale Ave. S.
Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle
Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
Sanitarian
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S.
Best Products Co. 5925 Earle Brown Drive
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
J. C. Penney 1265 Brookdale Center
Ryan Management 6160 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Ryan Management 6200 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
Consumer Vending 2828 Lyndale Ave. S.
Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle
Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
Sanitarian
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT
F & M Distributors 5951 Earle Brown Dr.
Kay -Bee Toy & Hobby 1320 Brookdale Center --�'''
Toys "R" Us 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. /.
Sanitarian
SWIMMING POOL
Brookdale Ten Apartments 3305 -3433 53rd Ave. N.
Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Hiway 100 N. France Racquet Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N.
Marvin Gardens 68th and Orchard r��}'lCciyt
Sanitarian .�L�
TAXICAB n //
Suburban Taxi Corporation 9614 Humboldt Ave. S.vLi1G4�CL�
Chief of Police
GENERAL APPROVAL: 4. '�We- e �k
A X ) K, Cit y Clerk