Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 04-23 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 23, 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. Approval of Minutes: *a. March 12, 1990 - Regular Session *b. March 26, 1990 - Regular Session 7. Mayoral Appointment: *a. Human Rights and Resources Commission 8. Resolutions: *a. 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 Project Nos. 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27, 1990 -11, and 1990 -12) and Calling for Hearing Thereon b. Approving Right -of -Way Plan for 69th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 C. Accepting Proposals for Professional Services Relating to Acquisition of Right -of -Way for , 69th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 *d. Declaring Surplus Property - Annual Auction - April 28, 1990 *e. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Replacement of Lift Stations 4, 5, and 7, Improvement Project No. 1989 -07, Contract No. 1990 -C f. Approving Purchase of Plotter for Use with Ultimap System CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 23, 1990 g. Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 89012 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 90006 submitted by Richard Whitley requesting resubdivision approval to divide off a vacant 40' lot which has been combined for tax purposes with the property at 5411 Fremont Avenue North. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 12, 1990, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 90008 submitted by Charles Hillstrom requesting resubdivision approval to divide off a vacant 40' lot which has been combined for tax purposes with the property at 5423 Fremont Avenue North. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 12, 1990, meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 90007 submitted by Merila and Associates requesting preliminary plat approval to combine the parcels that make up the Cross of Glory Church site at 5929 Brooklyn Boulevard and the Milo Carlson property at 5830 Drew Avenue North. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 12, 1990, meeting. 10. Discussion Items: a. Yard Waste Disposal Update (Oral Report) b. Redevelopment Potential - South of 69th Avenue Adjacent to T.H. 252 C. Proposed Foot Protection Policy d. Sanitary Sewer Backup Claims e. Request from Ponds Association Two for Speed Limit Change 1. Resolution Requesting the Commissioner of Transportation to Conduct a Traffic Investigation on Unity Avenue North between 69th and 73rd Avenues North f. Reforestation Program (Report from Public Works Department) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- April 23, 1990 g. Recommendations from Administrative Traffic Committee 1. Resolution Amending Street and Alley Lighting Policy *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment CORRECTION 10 to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Pedlar stated during the course of the public hearing, his feelings and concerns regarding cigarette vending machine sales has changed. He stated he does not believe the electronic devices will work effectively because when an establishment gets busy an employee will hit the button and move on to other duties without paying any attention. He added people who do smoke will have the tobacco with them in an establishment that does not have cigarette vending machines. Councilmember Pedlar stated he happens to be a tobacco user, although he wishes the circumstances were different. He noted if he can make a difference in Brooklyn Center, he will fight tooth and nail to help the children of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Paulson stated this is a health and monetary issue. He noted in many establishments there are teenagers and young adults working within the establishment. He stated he is sure these young employees will be more concerned with peer pressure than the gross misdemeanor violation. He reminded the Council that Ms. Buckholz purchased cigarettes from vending machines within the City's own municipal liquor stores. He pointed out if the City cannot stop sales in its own liquor stores, how can they expect anything different from the businesses in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Cohen stated the State Legislature is currently discussing the bans which have been imposed by many cities. He noted if the City of Brooklyn Center should approve this ordinance, a letter and a copy of the ordinance should be sent to the State as soon as possible so they know Brooklyn Center's position. Councilmember Scott noted she is a nonsmoker by choice but grew up in a household with two parents who smoked. She noted she is the mother of ten children, two of which smoke cigarettes. She stated as -her children were growing up, she wished it had not been so easy for her children to purchase cigarettes from vending machines and over the counter. She stated as parents and elected officials, she feels it is our responsibility to make certain decisions for our children. She stated she would make that decision by placing a total ban on cigarette vending machines in Brooklyn Center. Mayor Nyquist inquired how the issue will be handled for those licenses which have already been approved. The City Manager stated a reasonable time table for removal of the machines will be established with a refund for the balance of the license fee. ORDINANCE NO 90 -05 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. 2/26/90 -9- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson authorizing staff to refund the balance of license fees to those businesses holding an approved cigarette vending license. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -45 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION URGING LOCAL CONTROL OF LICENSING AND SALE OF CIGARETTES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:12 p.m. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances. He noted this ordinance amendment relates to.the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas and was discussed, most recently, at the February 12, 1990, City Council meeting. He noted this ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. He noted the amendment has been modified as per the discussions of February 12, 1990. Councilmember Cohen suggested staff prepare some type of chart which would explain what a resident can and cannot do and the net results. The City Manager stated he will have staff work on a simplistic chart or explanation. Councilmember Pedlar asked staff to elaborate on the phone calls they received. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated some of the calls he received concerned parking of boats and RVs on unimproved areas in the front _ yard. He noted other callers felt the City was going too far by trying to regulate what a resident could or could not do in their own yard. The City Manager stated he had some calls which dealt with the possibility of a total ban of parking in certain areas or for certain vehicles. Councilmember Scott inquired if children's playhouses would be prohibited. She noted she received a few calls regarding this and asked how the ordinance would apply. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it was not staff's intent to disallow playhouses for children. He noted in section D, item No. 14, playhouses could be stricken from the wording. The City Manager noted by passing this amendment some of the complaints can be addressed. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances, with the deletion of playhouse from section D, item No. 14, and setting a public hearing for April 9, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Height of Fences, Hedges or Walls. He noted this ordinance amendment was discussed at the February 12, 1990, City Council meeting and would allow higher fences, hedges, and walls in certain yards that abut public streets. He noted the ordinance amendment is offered this evening for a 2/26/90 -10- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 12, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen. Also present were' City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney harlie LeFeve Y re City Engineer y g eer Mark Maloney, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Dwight Gunberg of the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Pedlar requested item 8a be removed, and Councilmember Paulson requested item 8d be removed from the consent agenda. RESOLUTION NO 90 -46 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 1990 TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990- 13, CONTRACT 1990 -B The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 90 -47 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF KAREN JOHNSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. 3/12/90 -1- RESOLUTION NO. 90 -48 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF AN AIR COMPRESSOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -49 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CONTRACT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -50 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 14 THROUGH JUNE 24 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSE TO UTILIZE EXPLOSIVES FOR THE HOWE COMPANY There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the license to utilize explosives for the Howe Company. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE - OVER THE COUNTER F & M Distributors 5951 Earle Brown Dr. 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. 3/12/90 -2- 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. 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. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS J. L. Bjorlin Plumbing & Htg. Co. 10701 93rd Ave. N. Wenzel Heating & A/C / 1955 Shawnee Road NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Best Products Co. 5925 Earle Brown Drive Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. 3/12/90 -3- 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. 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. 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. 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 TAXICAB Suburban Taxi Corporation 9614 Humboldt Ave. S. The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION Mayor Nyquist noted a presentation was to be made this evening to Dennis Kueng, since he is retiring from the Charter Commission. He noted, however, Mr. Kueng does not appear to be in the audience at this time. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -51 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DENNIS KUENG The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATION I s 3/12/90 -4- Member Todd Paulson introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 10 -17, 1990, AS CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened at 7:20 p.m. PROCLAMATION Member Philip Cohen introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 11 -17, 1990, TO BE GIRL SCOUT WEEK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented 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. (BPC). He noted at the February 26, 1990, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare an agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. for the provision of services by BPC to the City. RESOLUTION N0. 90 -52 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed. Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Pedlar abstained. The City Manager presented a 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). He noted this resolution requests MNDOT to prepare cooperative agreements to provide for the sharing of costs relating to the reconstruction of old T.H. 252 (West River Road). Councilmember Pedlar inquired whether the questions and problems in this area have been resolved. The Director of Public Works stated all items have been addressed and noted the trail is on the west side of the road. He stated staff would be reviewing the landscaping needs with residents on a one -to -one basis. RESOLUTION N0. 90 -53 3/12/90 -5- Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Receiving Engineers 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. The Director of Public Works went on to review the location of the proposed improvements. He noted the Freeway Boulevard modification would be a five -lane improvement with a dedicated left turn lane. He stated 65th /66th Avenue from Humboldt to T.H. 252 meets the requirements for a State aid roadway for four lanes. He noted staff has reviewed the five -lane modification with the State aid representatives, and they have given preliminary approval to the project. He then went on to review the total cost of the project and the proposed funding sources for the project. He noted it would be possible to accomplish the entire project this summer if a public hearing were held on April 9, 1990. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the bituminous overlay would disturb the storm drainage system at Brooklyn Center High School. He noted he recalls there have been a number of problems with the storm drainage system in this area. The Director of Public Works stated he was not aware of any drainage problems for the high school, but he would review this area again. He stated he would not expect the overlay to create a problem. The Director of Public Works stated a special assessment would be levied against all commercial and industrial properties and also R3, R4, and R5 properties. He noted no special assessments would be levied against R1 and R2 property owners. Mayor Nyquist inquired if we would be encouraging more traffic in the area if we upgraded the roadway. The Director of Public Works stated he did not believe the upgrade would encourage anyone who is not currently using the roadway. Councilmember Paulson inquired when the traffic counts were taken for the report. The Director of Public Works stated traffic counts were taken last summer both before the detours and following completion of I -694. He stated the figure should not reflect any additional detour traffic. There was some discussion as to the Earle Brown Days parade and the Olympic festival events being held this summer. The Director of Public Works stated provisions would be made in the contract to provide the parade route be cleared for the Earle Brown Days parade, and the contractor would also be required to keep the entrances to the hotels and restaurants along this area open and visible for the Olympic festival. Councilmember Paulson stated he feels this is a considerable amount of money for an upgrade of a roadway that is still in good condition. The Director of Public Works pointed out $300,000 of it would be for public utility fund improvements, $250,000 of the project would be for traffic signal improvements, and the balance for the sidewalk and roadway. He added he does recognize this is a considerable amount of money, but staff does believe the improvements are 3/12/90 -6- necessary. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -54 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a 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). RESOLUTION NO 90 -55 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution 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. Councilmember Paulson inquired if the residents surrounding the lift stations have been notified of these ossible improvements. provements. The Director of Public Works stated all residents have been notified and seem receptive to the improvements. RESOLUTION NO 90 -56 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1989 -25, Storm Water Detention Pond at the Southwest Quadrant of the I- 94/694 Brooklyn Boulevard Interchange, Authorizing an Appraisal of the Property Proposed to be Acquired, and Calling for a Hearing Thereon. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the site in question and noted over the past year 3/12/90 -7- City staff has discussed the possibility of constructing a storm water detention pond on this undeveloped parcel of property. He noted the benefit the City would receive would not solely justify the acquisition of the property. He noted there have been a number of development proposals for the area, but one of the main concerns for this area is the access issue. Councilmember Cohen noted the City has avoided ponding areas in the past because of the risk to children and mosquito breeding. The City Manager noted this would be a very small area where there would not be any permanent retention of water. He noted it would accumulate during peak run -off periods and would provide flood control. The Director of Public Works explained if the Council wishes to proceed, there could be a discussion of a wet or dry pond at the public hearing. He noted ponding areas are more generally accepted now than they were 10 to 20 years ago. Councilmember Pedlar noted the resolution approves the hiring of an Appraiser, and he inquired how much the cost of this would be. The Director of Public Works stated it would be approximately $2,700. Councilmember Pedlar stated he is concerned with spending $2,700 without knowing the neighborhood reaction. He inquired if the City's Assessor could give any ballpark figure for this land. The Director of Public Works stated the City Assessor has appraised it at approximately $153,700. Councilmember Cohen noted the increasing amount of highway development creates more water run -off. He inquired at what point staff would feel the land was too expensive. The City Manager stated it would be worthwhile to rid the City of this land use problem, and there is some benefit in it, but what that is has not yet been determined. Councilmember Cohen pointed out if the City Assessor appraises the property at $153,000, staff can be sure an independent appraiser would not come in below that amount. He suggested letting the property sit, and possibly at some point, the owner would let it go tax delinquent. Councilmember 0 Scott stated it appears MNDOT is trying to get something for nothing. She stated if MNDOT wants the land, then they should buy it. She added she felt an informal public hearing should be held with the neighborhood before spending any money on an appraisal. The Director of Public Works stated the neighbors in the area have approached the City Manager and himself regarding sale of the property to the City. Councilmember Scott inquired why MNDOT could not pay for the appraisal, since they will be receiving the greater benefit. The Director of Public Works stated he has not approached MNDOT on this issue, but he could go back with a counter offer. Mayor Nyquist noted public hearings were scheduled for this evening and he suggested continuing discussion of this item until later in the meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to table consideration of this resolution until later in the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Relating to Trespass. He noted 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. He directed the Mayor and City Council to copies of the State Statute and Minneapolis ordinance which were provided in the Council packets. 3/12/90 _g_ Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Relating to Trespass and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Relating to Trespass. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 90 -06 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO TRESPASS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented 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. He noted this amendment would allow himself or his designee to iemove any items placed in the City's right -of -way which are in violation of this existing ordinance. He stated 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. The City Manager noted since the first reading of the ordinance, some questions have arisen from the prosecuting attorney. He stated he recommends opening the public hearing this evening and then tabling action to allow further review by the prosecuting attorney. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on 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. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to continue the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 -104 of the City Ordinances to the March 26, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor Licensing. He noted this amendment would allow a licensee to hold more than one on -sale intoxicating liquor license and also establishes a license for the Earle Brown Heritage Center. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. Councilmember Scott inquired if General Mills has already applied for a liquor license. The City Manager stated no formal application has been submitted because they did not wish to go any further unless the amendment was in the process of being approved. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve for first P reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City 3/12/90 -9- Ordinances Regarding Liquor Licensing and setting a public hearing date of April 9, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -57 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING LICENSE FEES FOR CLASS E AND CLASS F ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 90001 SUBMITTED BY DUANE SAARI REQUESTING 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 City Manager noted this item was first recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 1, 1990, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages one and two of the March 1, 1990, minutes and information sheet. He briefly went on to review the site and noted no new lots would be created. He then briefly reviewed the conditions for allowing a variance to subdivide by metes and bounds. He then reviewed the one condition recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. He noted a public hearing has been scheduled for this evening and notices have been sent. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 90001 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 90001. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 90001 submitted by Duane Sarri subject to the following condition: 1. The new legal descriptions and necessary deeds for transfer of property shall be filed with the titles to the property at the County. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89003 SUBMITTED B THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REQUESTING REZONING FROM I -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 The City Manager noted this application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1989, and was recommended for approval on March 2, 3/12/90 -10- 1989. He noted this recommendation was reaffirmed by the Planning Commission on March 1, 1990. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the application noting it was first heard on January 26, 1989, by the Planning Commission. He went on to review the recommendations by the Planning Commission and noted the Metro Council has given its approval for rezoning. He noted this item was delayed because of zoning ordinance amendments and the PUD ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -58 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 90 -59 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89003 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted and Special Uses in the C -1, C -2, and I -1 Districts and setting a public hearing date for April 9, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS TO EDA The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :20 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT The City Manager stated staff is recommending further continuance of this public hearing to the March 26, 1990, City Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to continue the public hearing on the Tax Increment District to the March 26, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to remove from the table a Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1989- 25, Storm Water Detention Pond at the Southwest Quadrant of the I- 94/694 Brooklyn Boulevard Interchange, Authorizing an Appraisal of the Property Proposed to be Acquired, and Calling for a Hearing Thereon. The motion passed unanimously. 3/12/90 -11- I Councilmember Cohen stated he is concerned with paying for a piece of property which the property owner has no other way of selling. He inquired if it was possible for the City to appraise the property, acquire the property and then give an easement to MNDOT for the ponding. He asked if the City owns the a property nd an injur � y or death occurs, is the City responsible. He noted it may be best to have informal meetings with the neighborhood and inquired if the City could be accused of any wrong doing because of inaction. There was a brief discussion regarding how the issue should be handled and whether staff should initiate neighborhood informal meetings and report back to Council. The Director of Public Works pointed out a formal public hearing would have to be held subsequent to the informal meetings. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if this parcel could create any revenue for the City. The City Manager responded negatively. Councilmember Cohen stated if the City does not follow the prescribed MNDOT procedures, will MNDOT really not send storm water to the property. He noted maybe the City can save money and avoid all of MNDOT's policies and procedures. The Director of Public Works stated Councilmember Cohen's alternate could be viable. Councilmember Cohen stated MNDOT knows the cities are short on funding, and it should attempt to change its policies if it is going to cost the cities additional money. The Director of Public Works stated these policies and procedures for acquiring the land are set because MNDOT would be using federal funding for the acquisition. He noted MNDOT is not prepared to complete the project at this point, and if it were, it would probably buy the property. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott directing staff to meet informally with the neighborhood regarding this issue. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS TRANSPORTATION STUDY The City Manager noted a final draft of the transportation survey, which was prepared by the Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission with assistance of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, was presented for the Council's review. Councilmember Paulson noted he sent a draft of the survey to representatives at MTC and noted he received favorable comments from them. He stated he would like to see a ranking system of what type of transportation the respondents would use. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson instructing staff to proceed with the survey. The motion passed unanimously. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO INSTALL LIGHTS ON THE PATH TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD The City Manager noted at its February 15, 1990, meeting, the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council authorize installation of lights on the path to the Little League fields nearest Centerbrook Golf Course. He noted the Commission sion was concerned regarding the safety f t ose he path. g P There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar 3/12/90 - to approve the recommendation of the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission for installation of lights on the path to the Little League field. The motion assed unanimously. nimousl . y PERSONNEL REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSING DEPARTMENT Councilmember Pedlar inquired if this was a budgeted position. The City Manager stated $17,000 had been approved in the 1990 budget for use of temporary employees for reinspections in the Assessing Department. He noted the City Assessor is proposing to use the two full -time assessment technicians to fulfill the duties of the temporary employees. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar approving the personnel request from the Assessing Department and authorizing the staff to implement the proposal. The motion passed unanimously. PRELIMINARY BUDGET DISCUSSION The City Manager stated the staff would begin the budget process soon and noted if the City Council had any suggestions or questions, they should call him. SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING TASK FORCE The City Manager noted organizations such as mediation, the battered spouse, and the Peacemaker Center have space needs which should be fulfilled. He noted, initially, it was considered to allow space for these in the City Hall addition. However, it has been pointed out some people may not wish to use these services, if they have to go to a public building to use them. The City Manager noted he has been considering having a special work session, and this issue could be discussed at that time. Mayor Nyquist noted one of the issues would be to confirm the premise that this type of facility should or should not be housed at City Hall. If it should not be included in City Hall, then there are many questions, such as where should it be, the cost, and maintenance responsibilities. Councilmember Scott stated Robbinsdale has many social service offices located under one roof which is very helpful to seniors. Councilmember Cohen stated it seems the County and State have a role in this issue, too, because funding also comes from the County and State. He agreed the City has an obligation to these organizations but noted he felt the City should bring the County and State into this process also. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to discuss legislative issues at the work session. The City Manager stated he would try and schedule a date somewhere between now and the first of May for a work session. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10 P .m. City Clerk Mayor 3/12/90 -13- L MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 26, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mayor Nyquist. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Scott requested item 7e be removed from the consent agenda. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 90 -60 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 28,000 GVW CAB /CHASSIS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -61 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF DUMP BODY AND HYDRAULICS FOR 28,000 GVW CAB /CHASSIS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 3/26/90 -1- RESOLUTIO - N N0. 90 62 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CHERYL ZAFFKE The motion for the adoption of the he foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 90 -63 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING FORFEITED PROPERTY AND CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SEMI - AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND RELATED SUPPLIES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Baskin Robbins 1277 Brookdale Center Breaktime Services 6660 Shingle Crk. Pwky. Bridgeman's 1272 Brookdale Center Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Boulevard Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Brooklyn Center American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center American Little League Iten Field Children's World Learning Center 6020 Earle Brown Drive Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centre 5951 Earle Brown Drive Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Econo Lodge 6445 James Circle Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Hardee's 1601 Freeway Blvd. Leeann Chin 6050 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Leeann Chin (warehouse) 6800 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. Target 6100 Shingle Crk. Pwky. Taystee Bread 4215 69th Ave. N. United Artists Theatre 5800 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Bethlehem Lutheran Church Youth 6844 Shingle Crk. Pwky. City- County Federal Credit Union 6010 Earle Brown Drive Garden City Elementary School 3501 65th Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air Comfort, Inc. 3944 Louisiana Circle 3/26/90 -2- e ' Allan Mechanical, Inc. 6020 Culligan Way Delmar Furnace Exchange 4080 83rd Ave. N. Dependable Htg. & A /C, Inc. 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. Ditter, Inc. 820 Tower Drive General Sheet Metal Corporation 2330 Louisiana Ave. N. Golden Valley Htg. & A/C 5182 West Broadway Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road Home Energy Center 14505 21st Avenue North Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 5000 North Hwy. 169 J. K. Heating Company 1286 Hudson Road Kleve, Inc. 13075 Pioneer Trail Loop- Belden - Porter Co. 315 Royalston Ave. N. Marsh Htg. & A/C Co., Inc. 6248 Lakeland Ave. N. McGuire mechanical Services, Inc. 20830 Holt Ave. Merit HVAC, Inc. 7801 Park Drive Metropolitan Mechanical Contr. 7340 Washington Ave. S. Minnegasco 201 South Seventh Street Noel's Htg. & A /C, Inc. 4920 Zachary Lane Northeast Sheet Metal, Inc. 4347 Central Avenue NE Owens Services Corporation 930 East 80th Street Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Avenue South Royalton Htg. & Cooling Co. 4120 85th Ave. N. Standard Htg. & A/C Co. 410 West Lake Street Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Ave. N. Thermex Corporation 4850 Park Glen Road Ray Welter Heating Co. 4637 Chicago Ave. S. MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. North Star Dodge Center, Inc. 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 6843 Washington Ave. Modern Control 6820 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Apple Automatic Food Service 6313 Cambridge Street Royal Business Forms 6840 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 6843 Washington Ave. Modern Control 6820 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Apple Automatic Food Service 6313 Cambridge Street Royal Business Forms 6840 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber Co. 1700 67th Ave. N. Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Marion Columbus 4006 65th Ave. N. Renewal: 3/26/90 -3- William R. and Linda D. Bjerke 3614 -16 50th Ave. N. I SIGN HANGER Arrow Sign Company g P Y 18607 Highway 65 NE Cragg Signs, Inc. 7150 Madison Ave. W. Demars Signs 4040 Marshall St. NE Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave. N. Naegele Outdoor Ad. Company, Inc. 1700 West 78th Street SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Burger Brothers 5927 John Martin Drive Kohl's Department Store 2501 County Road 10 SWIMMING POOL Beach Condominiums 4201 -07 Lakeside Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Evergreen Park Manor Apartments 7200 Camden Avenue North Four Court Apartments 2836 Northway Drive Garden City Court Apartments 3407 65th Ave. N. Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Moorwood Townhomes 5809 Lake Curve Lane Riverwood Townhomes Assoc. 6626 Camden Drive N. North Lyn Apartments 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. Northbrook Apartments 1302 69th Ave. N. TAXICAB Suburban Taxi Corporation 9614 Humboldt Ave. S. The motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATION Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 21, 1990, AS A DAY OF SPIRITUAL REDEDICATION IN BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Finance Director to Issue a Master Note for the Transfer of Funds from the Investment Trust Fund to the Recycling /Refuse Fund. He noted this would cover the shortage until the City receives the County's reimbursement. RESOLUTION NO 90 -64 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A MASTER NOTE FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT TRUST FUND TO THE RECYCLING /REFUSE UTILITY FUND 3/26/90 -4- The motion for the adoption p of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. Y The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Purchase of Semi - Automatic Weapons. Councilmember Scott inquired where the money from the sale of the existing guns would be deposited. The City Manager stated it would be deposited into the general fund. RESOLUTION NO 90 -65 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SEMI - AUTOMATIC WEAPONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented 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. Finance Director Paul Holmlund entered the meeting at 7:08 p.m. The City Manager stated staff is recommending the public hearing on this ordinance be closed this evening and consideration of the ordinance be tabled to a later date. Mayor Nyquist reopened the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 -104 of the City Ordinances and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to close the public hearing on 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 motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to table indefinitely consideration of 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 motion passed unanimously. RECESS TO EDA The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:11 p.m. and reconvened at 7:12 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The City Manager noted staff is again recommending continuance of this item to the April 9, 1990, City Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to table the public hearing on a Tax Increment Financing District to April 9, 3/26/90 -5- 1990. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION EVENT The City Manager noted a Volunteer Recognition Event is being planned for Thursday, April 26, 1990, at Constitution Hall. Councilmember Paulson inquired if there are any volunteers related with the Explorer Post. The City Manager noted there are volunteers that participate with the Explorer Post. Councilmember Pedlar stated he believes it is great the City recognizes volunteers but added he feels the City misses a number of them. He noted he has been asked by many organizations, including the Fire Department, how they get invited to a Volunteer Recognition Event. He inquired if the City had any idea of how many other organizations were being missed. The City Manager stated he is not sure it is possible to reach all volunteers. He noted staff will get information to the Council on all organizations which are on the staff's list. Councilmember Pedlar stated he believes if they cannot all be recognized, then it should not be done at all. Councilmember Cohen requested the City Manager to review this issue and see if there is someway of recognizing all volunteers. The City Manager stated he would review this issue but noted the City would always run the risk of missing someone. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:22 p.m. and reconvened at 8 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE The City Manager noted this is a formal public hearing on the proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North from the west city limits to Dupont Avenue. He noted notices of this hearing have been published in the City's official newspaper and individual notices have been sent to the owners of all properties within one block of 69th Avenue North. He noted in addition, three public informational meetings were conducted on February 28, March 1, and March 5, 1990, after mailed notices of these meetings were sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue North. He stated approximately 250 persons attended these informational meetings. He noted it is recommended the public hearing this evening be conducted in seven parts. He then proceeded to review the format for this evening's meeting. The Director of Public Works proceeded to review the project noting for the Mayor and City Council and those present in the audience the different types of roadways located within Brooklyn Center. He then went on to note the general problems along the entire corridor of 69th Avenue North. Those being roadway deficiencies, inadequate pedestrian /bikeway facilities, inadequate setbacks, little opportunity for landscape, and overhead utility lines. He then proceeded to review the grading and drainage problems along the proposed improvement area. The Director of Public Works indicated the traffic problem areas and pointed out the average daily traffic volumes for the three segments of the improvement area. He noted the average daily traffic volumes are from 1987 and a projection has been made for the year 2007. He explained many reports and studies have been completed regarding this proposed improvement area noting copies of all reports are available for the public at City Hall. He then went on to review 3/26/90 the cost estimates for the three alternates, noting these figures represent 1990 construction dollar amounts. He stated it is proposed the improvement would be done in three segments, those being Noble Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway, 1990 through 1992; west of Noble Avenue, after 1992; and east of Shingle Creek Parkway, after 1992. The Director of Public Works then introduced Glen Van Wormer of Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, the consultant on this project. Mr. Van Wormer reviewed the project area noting the problem areas of the many curves and bridge along the area. He noted the question this evening is not a matter of whether something will be done but when it will be done. Mr. Van Wormer stated several alternatives have been reviewed for this project. He stated for the segment between Zane Avenue and Noble Avenue, it is proposed a two -way left turn lane be installed with a through lane in each direction. He noted there are some drawbacks to this proposal, but overall, it is very workable. Mr. Van Wormer stated in the segment from Shingle Creek Parkway east to Dupont Avenue North, a single lane is proposed in each direction with a possible second lane near Humboldt Avenue. Mr. Van Wormer stated in the section between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway, many different plans were looked at for the intersection of 69th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. He noted the final plan would cut into the park but not a significant impact. He noted there is a need for extra lanes between Shingle Creek Parkway nd Brook Boulevard Y y He explained the need for additional lanes would mean a need for 100 feet of roadway but noted there is only 66 feet of right -of -way. He noted this issue brought forth many alternatives. He explained one alternative would be to take the north side of the cemetery and continue along the south side of 69th Avenue North past Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted another alternative would be to take the north side of 69th Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard or take part of the north and part of the south side or squeeze whatever is possible into the existing right - of -way. He then went on to review the three alternates. Mr. Van Wormer stated he would not expect any changes in the speed limit along this corridor. He noted currently the Brooklyn Center Police Department has been doing radar checks in the area and have noted there is not a significant amount of speed differential between Humboldt Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted also the stop signs on France Avenue have not appeared to reduce the speeds in the area. The Director of Public Works noted in the segment between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway, the issues which must be addressed based on Alternates A, B, or C are: property acquisition; drainage improvements; complete regrading; curb, gutter, and bituminous surfacing; sidewalks and trails; provisions for improved vehicular access and pedestrian crossing safety; landscaping; possible removal of overhead wires; and possible street lighting improvement. He noted the estimated project costs based on 1992 construction figures would be $5,574,000 for Alternates A or B, or $3,759,000 for Alternate C. He then went on to review the assessment policy for this area. He noted the special assessments would not be levied until the project is complete. 3/26/90 -7- The Director of Public Works then reviewed the revenue summary, noting the City would expect to obtain funding from the municipal State aid street fund, the County State aid highway funds, and the Brooklyn Center public utility fund. He noted along with the notice of the meeting, a questionnaire was sent to all property owners between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle in le Creek Parkway along 69th g y g Avenue North. He went on to review the questionnaire and the responses received from those residents. The Director of Public Works went on to review the impacts of the "no build" alternate. He noted among these impacts there would be the continuation of existing conditions, traffic volumes, congestion which would not decrease but could possibly increase, safety hazards to pedestrian and bicyclists, and no change in air or noise pollution. He continued by outlining the impacts of Alternates A, B, and C. He noted in Alternate A, it would be necessary to acquire 22 homes, two complete commercial properties, and two partial commercial properties. He stated in Alternate B, it would be necessary to acquire 22 homes, and two complete commercial properties. He noted in Alternate C, it would be necessary to acquire 13 homes and two complete commercial properties. He noted b y g Alternate C the new sidewalks and trails would be closer to the homes. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the traffic projections were based on the existence of the 610 cross -town. Mr. Van Wormer stated the 610 cross -town is far enough away to not impact this project. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if there were not any traffic volume increases, would it still be necessary to improve the roadway. Mr. Van Wormer stated there would still be problems in the area, such as the curves, bridge, and also the congestion at 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Paulson noted for the audience this is the third time the City Council has reviewed the project and noted most of its questions have already been answered. He stated the Council is interested in hearing the audience input this evening. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:22 p.m. and reconvened at 9:36 p.m. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the first phase improvements from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway. He recognized Phil Wilson, 3706 69th Avenue North. Mr. Wilson stated the residents along 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway held a meeting on Sunday evening, March 25, 1990, and elected a spokesperson to speak for the group. He then introduced Stanley Hahn, 4014 69th Avenue North. Mr. Hahn stated he owns the second oldest home in Brooklyn Center, and it dates back to 1880. He noted he is representing 24 residents who live along the north side of 69th Avenue North. He stated, basically, the group feels the Council is dealing with two issues this evening. First, should anything be done, and second, if it is to be done, what are the options. Mr. Hahn stated, as a group, the residents along the north side of 69th Avenue North support Alternate B. He noted each resident has a unique situation with his home, and it is a very emotional issue but one that must be dealt. He stated he and the residents along the north side of 69th Avenue North urge the City Council to accept Alternate B for the proposed redevelopment of 69th Avenue North. Mr. Wilson 3/26/90 -8- then presented a letter to the City Council which was signed by each of the . residents along the north side of 69th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works then presented information on the acquisition process for the homes. He noted the acquisition process results in an equitable financial settlement for the residents. Mayor Nyquist recognized Bonnie Engler, representing Pilgrim Cleaners at 6850 Brooklyn Boulevard. She noted this business has been located on this site for 30 years. She noted Pilgrim Cleaners strongly opposes the closing of the driveway off of 69th Avenue North. She noted she feels this will cause a loss of business because of the difficult access. She requested a median be installed on 69th Avenue North which would allow for an entrance into the business or the possibility of an entrance and service road along Brookdale Pontiac property be explored. She requested the access on 69th Avenue North be kept open during construction. The City Manager stated he has spoken with representatives of Pilgrim Cleaners and will 1 investigate both solutions presented this evening. Mayor Nyquist recognized Arnold Land, 6845 York Place. Mr. Land asked when an accurate reflection of the special assessments for the townhomes would be possible. The City Manager stated they would hope to have answers by the end of the year. He noted he would have staff contact Mr. Land. Mayor Nyquist recognized Randy Rowe, 6840 Brooklyn Boulevard, owner of Brooklyn Center Mobil. Mr. Rowe stated he has the same problem as Pilgrim Cleaners and would like a curb cut in the median on 69th Avenue North. The City Manager stated staff will be working with these property owners but noted there are not as many alternatives on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard as on the east side. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ernie Erickson, 6800 Drew Avenue North. Mr. Erickson stated he has a number of safety concerns between Grimes and Drew Avenues on the south side of 69th Avenue North. He noted there are many children in the neighborhoods which cross 69th Avenue North to g et to Palmer Lake Park. He stated he would urge the Council to accept either Alternate A or B and reject Alternate C. He noted, however, he did have some concerns with the demolition of an historic site. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council regarding the overall corridor improvement. He recognized Rich Hall, 2208 69th Avenue North. Mr. Hall inquired if the bridge over Shingle Creek would be rebuilt. The City Manager stated this bridge may be built before the rest of that segment of the project is completed. He noted the Park and Recreation Commission has indicated this area is the most difficult safety area for the trailway system. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mary Heitzig, 3618 69th Avenue North. Ms. Heitzig stated she would request a quick decision by the City Council this evening as this is a very emotional issue. She noted prolonging the issue only adds to the anxiety. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ron Nelson, 6925 France Avenue North. Mr. Nelson 3/26/90 -9- 1 stated he sympathizes with the residents along both the north and south sides of 69th Avenue North. He inquired what type of rerouting would be done during construction. The Director of Public Works stated it is anticipated the traffic would be able to continue along 69th Avenue North during the entire project. He noted, however, there may be some people who choose to go a different route. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North from west City limits to Dupont Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen stated it appears it is the desire of the residents that a decision be made this evening. He stated he feels there has been enough information presented to be able to make that decision. He noted he does not believe the "no build" alternative is a solution. He added he would like to commend the residents on the north side for their actions this evening. He noted, however, he is concerned with the residents on the south side of 69th Avenue North. He noted no one appeared to speak this evening and inquired if it might be possible to take the homes along the south side and create a parkway through the entire area. Councilmember Scott noted a project of this type has been put off for many years, partially due to the fact Brooklyn Center did not have control of this roadway in the past. She noted she does not believe Alternate C to be a viable alternate and stated she feels Alternate B is the best solution. Councilmember. Paulson stated he has had an opportunity to talk with many of the residents in this area, and he is impressed with the fact they do not think only of their benefit but also that of the City. He noted it is a difficult decision to take homes, and it is also difficult to lose residents. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the Resolution Ordering Improvement with Alternate B. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to amend the resolution and ask the EDA to explore the possibility of additional redevelopment of the south side of 69th Avenue North. Councilmembers Paulson and Scott accepted Councilmember Cohen's amendment. Councilmember Pedlar stated he is concerned by the lack of discussion and input from the south side residents. He added he likes the parkway concept presented by Councilmember Cohen. He stated he would like to propose an Alternate D which would be the taking of all homes on the north and south sides of 69th Avenue North for a parkway. He noted he does not support Alternate B because it leaves the residents on the south side of 69th Avenue North without many benefits. RESOLUTION N0. 90 -66 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -10, RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE 3/26/90 -10- AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member Celia Scott, and the motion passed. Councilmember Pedlar was opposed. y ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:30 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 3/26/90 -11- 7a APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES [ APPLCOM COMMISSION Name d e,1 /n/ / e a D CL Address 63/Z Pr �i n d1f f C .JSLl3� Street Zip Code Telephone Home 5GL -� / /y� Work Occupationgom e- mak �e r- Years lived in Brooklyn Center I have read the Human Rights and Resources Commission Enabling Resolutions (Resolution Nos. 68 -44, 69 -35, 71 -211, 74 -68, and 87 -132), which defines the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission. Yes ✓ No Comments I understand the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance and participation and feel I have the time available to be an active participant. Yes ✓ No Comments Additional comments on my interest, experience, background, ideas, etc. �J 3 1 C ` t Signature Date Submit to: Mayor Dean Nyquist City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/23/90 Agenda Item Number go, 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 PROJECT NOS. 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27, 1990 -11 AND 1990 -12) AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplernent this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Council held a ublic hearing on rin April 9 1990 regarding the proposed g P � g g P P improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th /66th Avenues North and Humboldt Avenue North. All property owners who would potentially be levied special assessments were notified by certified mail of this hearing, and a legal notice appeared in the Brooklyn Center PostNews on March 28 and April 4, 1990. Unfortunately, both the mailed notifications and the legal notice incorrectly identified Constitution Hall of the Community Center instead of the Council Chambers as the location of this hearing. In addition, the City Attorney has informed us that the notice should have described the properties proposed to be assessed in more detail. Community Center staff have noted that the night of the public hearing they directed four of five persons to the Council Chambers, although they don't know if those persons were actually able to find and attend the hearing. We did not receive any complaints in the days after the hearing from persons unable to find the hearing. g As for the assessed area descriptions, all owners of properties proposed to be assessed received a mailing which included maps of areas to be assessed, and a listing of property identification numbers and addresses of the properties in those areas. While we don't: believe that these two defects caused any problems other than inconvenience, we recommend that the public hearing be reconvened and that the property owners he renotified. All comments, presented at the April 9 hearing • would also be considered at this reconvened hearing. The Council would then reconsider ordering these projects. • City Council Action Required A resolution which rescinds the ordering of the proposed improvements and which calls for a reconvening of the public hearing is provided for consideration. • • J7 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 PROJECT NOS. 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 WHEREAS, a hearing held on these improvements on April 9, 1990 must be reconvened due to a defective notice of hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. 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 0 to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $1,378,460. RESOLUTION N0. 2. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 7th day of May, 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. Such hearing shall be treated as a reconvened nearing from the hearing held on April 9, 1990. 3. That part of Resolution 90 -76 adopted by the Council on April 9, 1990 set forth as paragraph 1 thereof ordering the improvements as proposed is hereby repealed and rescinded. 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 x/23/90 Agenda Item Number —?b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAN FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP D ECTO OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On March 26 the City Council adopted a resolution ordering the reconstruction • of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. In order to proceed with the acquisition of properties required to provide adequate right -of -way for this improvement, and to assure that the costs of acquisition will be reimbursable from Municipal State Aid funds, it is necessary to have the City Council adopt a "Right -of -Way Plan" which identifies properties to be acquired, and to receive approval of that plan from MNDOT's State Aid office. SEH, Inc. has prepared the detailed right -of -way plan, a copy of which will be available for review at the Council meeting on April 23. However the essential elements are shown on the attached sheet which is an amended version of the right -of -way plan contained in previous project reports and used at the public hearing. Specifically, the plans show the following (see notes on the plan sheet): o West of Brooklyn Boulevard: acquisition of several "slivers" of property from abutting properties, but no acquisition of any complete parcels of property. Note The original plan indicated the possible purchase of five properties in this area. The proposed right -of -way plan indicates that none of those properties would be purchased. However, since this segment of 69th Avenue is under Hennepin County jurisdiction, the final decision regarding right -of -way requirements will rest with Hennepin County. 0 • Between Brooklyn Boulevard and June Avenue: acquisition of the two • commercial properties abutting the north side of 69th Avenue, i.e., the property now occupied by Tires Plus, and the property now occupied by Saba Flowers and Orbit T.V. • Between June Avenue and West Palmer Lake Drive: acquisition of all 23 homes abutting the north side of 69th Avenue. Note The original plan indicated the "possible purchase" of the second home north of 69th Avenue on West Palmer Lake Drive (i.e. - 6907 West Palmer Lake Drive). Based on a more detailed evaluation of the roadway design in this area, it is noted that: (1) an acceptable right angle intersection of West Palmer Lake Drive with 69th Avenue can be developed without purchasing this property; and (2) while this house would be the house closest to the new roadway between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive there will b - e a parcel of "surplus right-of-way" wa " P P g Y between that lot and the new roadway which could be made available to this owner to allow the size of that lot to be increased. Accordingl g Y City staff does not believe there is justification to purchase this home in conjunction with the street improvement project. City Council Action Require d A resolution approving the right -of -way plan is attached, for consideration by the City Council. • 0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAN FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, on March 26, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution 90 -66 ordering the reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, implementation of this project requires the acquisition of properties to provide adequate rights -of -way to allow construction in accordance with the approved plan; and WHEREAS, Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) has prepared a proposed right -of -way plan showing, in detail, the parcels of property which need to be acquired for this improvement and has presented said plan to the City Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said right -of -way plan, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved. 2. Said plan shall be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Aid Division, for approval in accordance with Municipal State Aid rules and regulations. 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. two �. FMCHASE Q P0890Le P1JOOM PI#OPOB® FQIt OF WAY d Q a ui 0 Lu a ui Y Q Q LANE 'S BROOKLYN m m w O w 1 1 P�� ORIGINAL PLAN AS INCLUDED 2 _ ! 1 ¢ . QI �m 1_ (� _ w i � ti Mti P Q mac. IN PRELIMINARY REPORTS, to ' i > +m `Z " --; < �--- W {„ ( QP Q W fi AND AS SHOWN AT PUBLIC < IQs f > 1 < ... 1 0 . ,a to > i" 9 ? 4. CENTER ADD. >s < » 1. + 4 ,0 3 t _ �J.A s < , ; < .w ,.. t- -�< HEARING ON 3/26/90 ° - < z . `,�_ —'. �: HAHN J ., 0 �RTy y 0 p C hRy _ , T S < O Q- ( \ �s`NG CFR RFq ` AUD. . 1�0. 25 - - MOUND .. \\ 0i q �Q v� \ t ' �t Wi � SP �° % ? CEMETERY Z - 2 4 q U m > Lu 00 � > ALTERNATE "W • U RIGHT OF WAY FtE0U4RB&NTS f.nrr wr WAD w slw w wwrw A �.. � �an a" at we ALTERNATES 'A• d 'B• ertss 10 BROOKLYN CENTER owe 'E""O rrs °ESIO" +to mm ...crn0ea.,a was AYA AVEMN K 1 ; PURCHASE OF SMALL m u j W� Q SLIVERS OF PROPERTY. Z Q DO NOT PURCHASE THE J PROPERTIES SHOWN ABOVE Y Z d W cm FOR 'POSSIBLE PURCHASE' PURCHASE OF 23 HOMES ABUTTING 1� p O UNLESS HENNEPIN COUNTY O -2 NORTH SIDE OF 69TH AVENUE - N'Q Z REQUIRES SUCH PURCHASE J � DO NOT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY i ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF m SHOWN ABOVE FOR 'POSSIBLE PURCHASE' 3 PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAN - APRIL, 1990 PURCHASE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ABUTTING NORTH SIDE OF 69TH CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/2'1 /9n Agenda Item Number O 0— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP IRECT OF PUBLIC WORKS ? `� MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:~`°` No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On March 26 the City Council ordered reconstruction of 69th Avenue North • between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. As a separate agenda item at tonight's meeting, the Council has been asked to approve a right -of -way plan which designates all parcels of property which need to be acquired to allow construction in accordance with the approved plan. If that resolution is adopted, the next step will be to proceed with acquisition of the properties, in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations. Established procedures under the Uniform Relocation and Real Properties Acquisition Policies require that: • the City hire qualified appraiser to appraise the value of each parcel to be acquired. • an "appraisal review" be conducted to assure that the appraisal meets required standards. • the City establish a "just compensation" offer, the amount of which is no less than the reviewer's certificate of fair market value. • that negotiations for purchase of the properties be conducted in accordance with detailed procedures which include an offer from the City to reimburse the property owner for the costs (within established limits) of hiring an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property. o that a relocation assistance program be established for the purpose of • establishing the relocation rights and benefits of persons displaced by the land acquisition process. During the past month City staff has discussed this process at length with representatives from various agencies which regularly deal with property acquisition, and we have interviewed a number of private firms who provide the types of professional services required. Based on these discussions, we tentatively recommend that the City employ Evergreen Land Services Inc. of Brooklyn Center and Conworth Inc. of Minneapolis to provide the following services: Evergreen Land Services, Inc. • conduct title searches and obtain abstracts as necessary to ascertain ownership interests on each property. • hire an appraiser, approved by the City, to conduct property appraisals. • hire a second appraiser approved by the City, to conduct appraisal reviews. • submit these reports to the City to obtain the City's just compensation offer. • conduct negotiations for purchase with the property owners, in coordination with Conworth, Inc. Conworth, Inc. • o conduct relocation appraisals. o provide relocation counselling and assistance. o conduct relocation negotiations in coordination with Evergreen Land Services. Because of the many uncertainties involved in this type of work, it is not possible to establish a fixed price contract for either of these services. However, both firms have agreed to develop and submit an estimate of the time and costs involved - and to submit these so that a budget can be established. We expect to have detailed and complete proposals for these services covering all properties for the City Council's consideration at the next Council meeting on May 7. Meanwhile, the owners of one property (i.e., Phil and Robin Wilson, at 3706 69th Avenue) have requested that the City proceed as soon as possible to acquire their home on the basis of their claim of hardship (i.e., Mr. Wilson has accepted and started work at a new job out -of- state; and Mrs. Wilson has a job offer in that same area, but feels she cannot accept it until they are able to deal with the sale of their house). We have requested the MNDOT District State Aid Engineer to concur in the hardship finding so that acquisition of that property may proceed prior to receiving official approval of the right -of -way map. That approval was received on April 23, 1990. • Even with approval of this "hardship," the City must still proceed in • accordance with the Uniform Relocation policies and procedures. Accordingly, we recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which accepts the proposals of Evergreen Land Services Inc. and Conworth Inc. for the purpose of acquiring the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, on March 26, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -66, ordering the reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, implementation of that improvement in accordance with the approved plan requires the acquisition of certain properties including the property located at 3706 69th Avenue North (Lot 14, Block 4, Palmer Lake Terrace Addition, PIN 27- 119- 21 -43- 0075), as shown on the right -of -way plan for this project, as approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained proposals from Evergreen Land Services Inc. and from Co nworth Inc. to provide professional services including appraisals, negotiations, and relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Properties Acquisition policies, as related to the above - described property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal for services submitted by Evergreen Land Services Inc. is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The proposal for services submitted by Conworth Inc. is hereby accepted and approved. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contracts with both firms on the basis of their proposals. 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. EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO. 6200 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE 415 • BROOKLYN CENTER. MN 55430 PH. 612- 566 -1036 April 19, 1990 Mr.Sy Knapp City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: 69th Ave. No. Hardship Case Dear Kr. Knapp: Evergreen Land Services has the ability to handle all the aspects necessary for acquisition of the Hardship parcel, except the relocation requirements. This includes compliance with the uniform Acquisition and Relocation Act and MN /DOT requirements and procedures. The acquistion would include the following: title search for owners; appraisals; review appraisal; preparation of option or purchase agreement; negotiate to purchase; abstract update;title opinion; activities to clear title; closing document preparation; mortgage releases; closing on parcel; recording of documents; closing file and giving to City. There are several parts of this process that would be contracted out to consultants, in particularly to an attorney. You have a very highly qualified and competant law firm, Holmes & Groven, which could handle several steps of this process. It is our suggestion that Evergreen handle preliminary title search, appraisals, review appraisals, preparation of options, and land owners negotiations. Holmes & Groven would handle the abstract update, title opinion, necessary action to clear title, closing documents preparation, closing on parcel and recording of documents. Our estimate of costs for our portion of this Hardship parcel is $2,500 - $3,000. -2- All notices and letters regarding the acquisition will be g 9 prepared by us on Brooklyn Center stationary, approved and signed by Brooklyn Center, and mailed or delivered by Evergreen. All notices and letters concerning relocation proceedures would be handled by Conworth. Yours t y, Steve J. Ripsin Vice President SJR:bz CONWORTH, INC. 4725 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612) 929 -0044 April 19, 1990 j Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 I } Subject: 69th Avenue Right of Way , Relocation and Property Management Services Dear Mr. Knapp: i This is a follow -up to your phone call of today, in which you requested that I provide you with a fee for relocation and property management services for the one family which the City is considering as a hardship acquisition. To successfully relocate I this family, and process the necessary claim forms, we are estimating the fee to be between $1,350.00 and $1,500.00. The relocation will be conducted in accordance with State Law and MnDOT procedures. You may recall from my previous letter, that our hourly rate is $55.00 and we bill by the quarter hour. On April 18, 1990, we met with Evergreen Land Service Company to work out some of the details for your project. At that time it was mutually agreed that Conworth, Inc. would provide relocation and property management services on the properties scheduled for acquisition. Since we have not had time to discuss procedures that the City would be following as far as the acquired properties, we are proposing that we bill the City directly for services based on our hourly rate. We need to discuss whether or not the City intends to re -rent the properties after they're acquired, as well as other similar matters. we are enclosing a sample contract for services for your review. Since ly ohn Conno s Owner /Consultant sl Enclosure Qnrin�rnlnnmcnt drrniicitinnlRclnr�tinn Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the list of property submitted by the City Clerk at the April 23, 1990, City Council meeting is hereby declared surplus property and is hereby authorized for public sale at the annual City auction to be held on April 28, 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. O. ITEM DESCRIPTION FIXED ASSET NO. 475 Reznor Heater, 200,000 BTU per hour input, #XA200 Ser# VD933N967 Reznor Heater, 200,000 BTU per hour input, #XA200 Ser# VD933N960 Reznor Heater, 200,000 BTU per hour input, #XA200 Ser# VB933N986 478 Reznor Heater, 200,000 BTU per hour input, #XA200 479 Infrared Htr, 48,000 BTU, Model JB4DSAN, Perfect. /Schw.Ser# 10 -2 -17376 480 Toro Snowblower, Model 38120 481 Punching Bag 482 Ashtray - steel 483 Ashtray - steel 484 Ashtray - steel 485 Ashtray - steel 486 Ashtray - steel 487 Ashtray - steel 488 Typing Stand FA1482 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/ Agenda Item Number r7 16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATIONS 4, 5 AND 7, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -07, CONTRACT 1990 -C DEPT. APPROVAL: , SY KNAPP I CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS a? MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On March 12, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution No. 90 -56, established the above project and ordered the advertisement for bids. Bids for construction of these improvements were opened on April 12, 1990. Of the three bids received, the lowest bid was by 0 & P Contracting, Inc. in the total amount of $202,359.83 The Engineer's estimate at the time of the bid opening was $249,640. 0 & P Contracting is regarded as a competent contractor and has previously completed similar work in the City of Brooklyn Center (1985 -A, Lift Station No. 10). Accordingly, we recommend that the low bid of 0 & P Contracting, Inc. be accepted and a contract awarded to that firm. Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATIONS 4, 5 AND 7, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -07, CONTRACT 1990 -C WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1989 -07, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 12th day of April, 1990. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount 0 & P Contracting, Inc. $202,359.83 Austin P. Keller 255,216.00 Lametti & Sons 262,999.50 WHEREAS, it appears that 0 & P Contracting, Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with 0 & P Contracting, Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1989 -07 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders and deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. The estimated project cost of Improvement Project 1989 -07 is hereby amended from $302,500.00 to $256,973.83. The estimated project cost is comprised of the following: As Ordered As Amended Construction Cost $217,740.00 $202,359.83 Contingency 32,670.00 10,118.00 Easement Acquisition 2,000.00 2,000.00 Engineering (8%) 20,030.00 16,998.00 Administration (1%) 2,500.00 2,125.00 Legal (1 %) 2,500.00 2,125.00 Interest (10 %) 25.060.00 21,248.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $302,500.00 $256,973.83 RESOLUTION NO. 4. Financing for Improvement Project No. 1989 -07, Replacement of Lift Stations 4, 5 and 7 (Contract 1990 -C) shall be from 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 OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/23/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF PLOTTER FOR USE WITH ULTIMAP SYSTEM *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ,l MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:�b No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes In 1988, Council approved the purchase of an UltiMap workstation package for the Engineering Department. This package included a small printer /plotter which was recommended by LOGIS and the UltiMap Corp. City staff have utilized a full -size plotter at LOGIS when need for this capability has arisen. In the past several months, staff have undertaken several projects which have exceeded the printer /plotters capabilities, and which have required more extensive use of LOGIS' plotter. As of March 31, we have used about twice the_ number of hours we expected to use over the entire year. We previously had thought about 8 hours a month was a reasonable estimate of time using LOGIS' plotter; based on this year's experience, so far about 30 hours is a more likely average. Since we are billed by LOGIS at $15 per hour, we would expect to spend about $5,400 per year renting LOGIS' plotter. We have an opportunity to purchase a full -size plotter of equal or better quality than LOGIS' for approximately $6,022. This is a price reduction that is available for a short time only. The City's Data Processing Committee has reviewed a memorandum from City Engineer Mark Maloney detailing the need to purchase a plotter (see attached) and has recommended its purchase. Council Action Requested Review the attached memorandum. A resolution approving purchase is attached for consideration. 0 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 April 19, 1990 TO: Data Processing Committee FROM: Mark Maloney, City Engineer SUBJ: Request to Purchase a Full -Size UltiMap Plotter In 1988 the City purchased an UltiMap workstation package which included a small -scale printer /plotter. When we need large - scale, high - quality plots we bring the plot files to LOGIS and use the plotter there. However, we are finding that this occurs much more often than we had anticipated, and the projects we have undertaken through the first quarter of 1990 have more than used up the time we had budgeted for the entire year. As we take on new projects, such as digitizing public utility information into the UltiMap database and plotting additional maps and plans, we will soon reach the point where it will be more cost - effective to purchase our own P lotter. We have for a short time a unique opportunity to purchase a high- quality, full size plotter at a substantial reduction in price. This HP DraftMaster plotter, which normally sells for $7,995, is available through John Josephson at Cedar Computer for about $6,022. The client who ordered the plotter was not able to take delivery, and John is willing to let a LOGIS member take it off his hands. Ben Verbick, the LOGIS UltiMap Coordinator, highly recommends that we take advantage of this opportunity. Therefore, I request your recommendation to the City Manager that we purchase this HP plotter from John Josephson, with funding from the Public Utility Fund. The Current Printer /Plotter When we purchased the JDL printer /plotter as part of the original package, it was at the recommendation of UltiMap Corporation. This printer /plotter is useful for use small check plots and special use extractions, but it has limited plotting capabilities. We find that our projected uses are more varied than we anticipated, and that those uses include many more full -size, detailed plots. '�' W8A 4llAA1fRIU QfI' For example, we recently updated the City's eighth- section address maps, and plotted all seventy -two. All the plan sheets for the Freeway /65th /66th Avenues reconstruction projects were developed on the Apollo, and all those sheets were plotted at LOGIS. We intend to update our easement eighth- sections, which have not been updated in many years, and plot a new book of those. We also intend to start digitizing the g g vast amount of public utilities information, and provide specialty plots. Many of these uses, which are becoming more routine, are beyond the capability of the JDL. The JDL was purchased in 1988 for $4,563. It is my recommendation that we retain the JDL printer /plotter until we can determine if it has other uses here at the City or if we should sell it in the future. Our Plotting Needs To fully utilize the Apollo's capabilities, and to avoid having to travel over to LOGIS every time we need to plot, we would need a full -size plotter. This plotter should be capable of plotting on mylar, and should be easily adaptable to UltiMap and possibly in the future, AutoCAD. The HP DraftMaster plotter which is currently under consideration meets these criteria. Our experience over the past three months has indicated that rather than the eight hours per month of plotting at LOGIS that we had anticipated, we should expect to log about 25 -30 hours per month. Since we are billed at $15 per hour, we should expect to pay $4,500 -5,400 per year of plotter rental to LOGIS. It is apparent that purchasing a plotter for our exclusive use would be more cost - effective in the long run than continuing to rent the plotter at LOGIS. Summary In summary, I request that the Data Processing Committee recommend to the City Manager that we purchase the DP DraftMaster plotter from John Josephson. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Mack Maloney,f.0 qty Engineer Paul Holmlund, Director o `Finance rr Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF PLOTTER FOR USE WITH ULTIMAP SYSTEM WHEREAS, in October of 1988 the City Council approved the purchase of an UltiMap /CAD workstation, which included a small -scale JDL printer /plotter that had been recommended by LOGIS and the UltiMap Corporation; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the Data Processing Committee that the current and projected work tasks performed by the UltiMap /CAD workstation exceed the capabilities of the small -scale printer /plotter; and WHEREAS, the purchase of a full -size plotter is highly recommended by the LOGIS UltiMap Coordinator after review of billings which detail the rental costs of LOGIS equipment by the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the Data Processing Committee has recommended the purchase to the City Manager; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the sum of $6,022 be appropriated from the Public Utility Fund for the purpose of purchasing a full -size plotter and the City Manager is hereby directed to make such a purchase. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SEVERSON, WILCOX & SIIELDON,P.A. A FHOf"ESSIONAL ASSOCIATION AlTORNEYS AT I AW LARPYS. -SEVERSON* KENNETH R, ILALL JAMES F. Si-IELDON "KOTT D. JOHNSTON J. PATRICK WILCOX* 600 MIDWAY NA'T'IONAL BATNK BUILDING J05EPH P. EARLEY TFRENCE P. DURKIN i 300 WE S r 1-7 TH STRFj FT IA FEN M. SOLFEST MICHAF.T, G. DOUGHEKfY A PPLE VALLEY, -MINNESOTA 55124 CHRISTINF N-1—SCOTILL0 1.21 432-3136 ANNETTE; Nt, MARGARIT NUCHAEL F, NTk)LENDA*' io PAUL J, STIER TELEFAX NITNIBER 432-3780 L)ANIEL K SHFPTDAN ': ALSO LICENSED IN IOWA 01 ALS0 LTUNSFID IN WISCONSIN JOHN E. VCKELICH ♦--AIZO LICENSED IN NEBRASKik April 23, 2.99G The Honorable City Council City of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55443 A` TN: Ronald Warren Re* Application of 'Fina Oil and Chemical Company/Atkins Parcel. Dear Council Members and M Warren: In confirmation of my pa di scuss i ons with a number of you, please be advised that Fina Oil. and Chemical Company has. decided not to exercise -its Option on Mr. Atkins' property and will not, therefore, proceed with its proposed development of that parcel. Accordingly, we hereby respectfully request that the Council take no further action on Our Application for Site Approval and Special. Ilse Permit. On behalf_ of Fina and myself, thank you very much for all of the time and consideration you and City Staff have afforded.tLs in this matter. While it is unfortunate that we could not conclude this project at this time, we look forward to o future dealings with the City of Brooklyn Center. Very truly you:r SEVERSO)y, Wi�!TLC & 10SH LDON, P.A. J. Patrick Wilcox I PW: tat MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA APRIL 12, 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Mark Holmes and Kristen Mann. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Bertil Johnson is on vacation and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 29 1990 Chairperson Malecki called for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 29, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mann stated there should be a correction on page 8 of the minutes as she had voted to close the public hearing, not against. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the March 29, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90006 (Richard Whitley) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for resubdivision approval to divide off a pre- existing vacant lot which has in the past been combined for tax purposes with two other combined lots, on which the residence at 5411 Fremont Avenue North is located. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90006 attached). The Secretary stated that this application is not a plat, but rather an action to acknowledge the uncombining of two legal lots of record which had been combined for tax purposes a number of years ago. He explained that the City Attorney had rendered an opinion about 10 years ago that the City could not prevent such an action and that these lots could be built on provided ordinance requirements could be met. He further explained that if, following the original combination for tax purposes, a property owner built over a property line then the City would not be compelled to allow the uncombining of the lots in question. He stated, however, that this is not a factor in this situation. He noted that this application is for a determination and no public hearing is, therefore, required. 4 -12 -90 1 Commissioner Bernards asked if the 5' setback indicated for the proposed house implies that there will be no openings, such as doors and windows, on the north side of the dwelling. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked when the lots were combined. The Secretary stated that he was not sure, but assumed that they were combined 20 -25 years ago. Commissioner Sander asked if the combination was considered to save tax money. The Secretary answered in affirmative. He stated when a property is combined for tax purposes and a building permit is issued to cross the common property line, the property cannot be uncombined as is being sought in this case. Commissioner Sander asked if the property would be a buildable lot. The Secretary stated that it would. Commissioner Sander asked if the other lot could be divided. The Secretary stated that it could, but this is not proposed in this case. Commissioner Sander stated she felt 40' lots are too narrow for today's standards. The Secretary stated the 1966 Comprehensive Plan encouraged the combination of small lots in the R2 zoned portion of the southeast neighborhood. He added that this was never realized and the City, during the 1970 was constantly facing requests to build on substandard lots. He stated that there had been only a few variance requests in the southeast neighborhood which had been approved and the Council finally decided to abandon the effort in 1976 when it adopted Section 35 -500. Commissioner Mann asked what the minimum lot width is in the R2 zoning district for a two - family dwelling. The Secretary stated it is 75' width and a minimum of 6,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Commissioner Mann asked if that meant two - family dwellings are prohibited on 40' lots. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything he wished to add regarding the application. Hearing nothing, she called for a motion for action on the application. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90006 (Richard Whitley) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve Application No. 90006 subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 4 -12 -90 2 3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend PP P approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90008 (Charles Hillstrom) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for resubdivision approval to divide off the extra vacant lot south of 5421 Fremont Avenue North which has been combined for tax purposes with the principal site for some years. He stated that this application is very similar to Application No. 90006 and that there is no public hearing required for this application. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90008 attached). The Secretary noted that there is a nonconformity with the setback for the existing house from the north property line. He added that the uncombining of the lots does not effect the nonconforming setback and, therefore, does not prevent the action being proposed. He noted that there is at, a minimum, a need for a cross access easement over Lot 5 to provide access to the existing garage on Lot 4, and depending on the property owner's preference, there might be a need to provide Lot 5 with the right to access over Lot 4 and possibly the need for an easement for parking as well. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Charles Hillstrom asked to what extent is the requirement of the cross access easement. The Secretary stated that it is necessary to give Lot 4 the right to access over Lot 5 in order to obtain access to the existing garage. Mr. Hillstrom asked if the language could be worked out with the surveyor. The Secretary stated that it could, but the language would have to be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the property before a building permit could be issued. Commissioner Sander asked if the easement is for both access to the garage and for parking. The Secretary stated it could be for both, depending on how the properties are going to be used. Mr. Hillstrom asked if this requirement is mandatory. The Secretary y stated that he believed it was and that it is the owner's responsibility to provide the necessary easement document. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90008 (Charl Hillstrom) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve Application No. 90008 subject to the following conditions: 4 -12 -90 3 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 3 The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 4. No variances from City ordinance requirements are implied. Any future structures on Lot 5 are required to meet setback requirements. 5. The applicant shall execute and file a cross access easement over the northwest corner of Lot 5 prior to finalization of the resubdivision. Said cross access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90007 ( Merila and Associates) The Secretary introduced the last item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into two parcels the land at the Cross of Glory Church (5929 Brooklyn Boulevard) and a single - family residence at 5830 Drew Avenue North. He stated that a public hearing is required for the application and a notice was published in the newspaper. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90007 attached). Commissioner Holmes asked if the Commission needs to address the issue of the dispute between property owners. The Secretary stated it would have to be resolved between the property owners. Commissioner Bernards asked if the owners of the neighboring office building are aware of the property line conflict. The Secretary stated that it was his understanding that they have been contacted to participate in the platting process, but chose not to do so at this time. Commissioner Bernards asked if the position taken by the owners of the office building as to adverse possession is legal. The Secretary answered that it will have to be resolved by the property owners. Mr. James Merila, of Merila and Associates, representing Cross of Glory Church, stated than an error in the previous survey had been 4 -12 -90 4 discovered and that error will probably be resolved through the Hennepin County Surveyor's office. He explained that a joint parking agreement between the church and Boulevard Properties (owner of the office building) had been initiated some years ago. He stated that the office use had been changed to a medical use, therefore, the property owner was to acquire additional parking elsewhere. He stated that the office building owner had acquired a parcel to the south that could rovide the additional parking P P g should the joint parking agreement no longer be necessary. Mr. Merila stated that the church has a long range plan to expand, therefore, they will need more parking in the future. He explained that now would be a good time to resolve the problem as the joint parking agreement will end when the expansion is completed. He stated the church will notify the property owner of the office building when the expansion does go forward. Commissioner Holmes asked if the land dispute will be there whether the Commission passes or denies the application. The Secretary stated that the plat combining the parcels in question is to resolve the dispute between the church and Milo Carlson, however, the problem between the church and the office building will not be resolved now. The Secretary stated the problem is there regardless and the City Attorney advises the City not to hold up the plat. Mr. Merila stated that the filing of the final plat will bring the issue of the error in the survey to the attention of the Hennepin County Surveyor. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90007 ( Merila a nd Associates) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 90007 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 4 -12 -90 5 3. All survey monuments associated with the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the final plat for filing. 4. A cross access agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the properties providing access across the proposed Lot 1 to Lot 2 in the area by Drew Avenue North. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Chairperson 4 -12 -90 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90006 Applicant: Richard Whitley Location: 5411 and 5415 Fremont Avenue North Request: Resubdivision The applicant requests resubdivision approval to divide off a pre- existing vacant lot which has in the past been combined for tax purposes with two other combined lots, on which the residence at 5411 Fremont Avenue North is located. The land in question is zoned R2 and is bound on the east by Fremont Avenue North, on the south by a single- family home, on the west by a public alley, and on the north by a single- family home. The area is generally a single - family neighborhood. The land at 5411 Fremont consists of three small lots, Lots 8 9 and 10, Block 1, Fairhaven Park Addition, which are each 40' wide and approximately 128' deep. The existing house and garage are entirely on the southerly lot, Lot 10. The resubdivision request is for the City to approve dividing off the northerly 40' lot, Lot 8, which is vacant. This is not a plat. The lots in question as pre- existing. All that is requested is that the northerly lot, Lot 8, no longer be combined for tax purposes with Lots 9 and 10. Under Section 35 -500 of the Zoning ordinance, "a lot or parcel which was of legal record within the R1 or R2 zoning district on January 1, 1976, and which does not meet the requirements of [the] ordinance as to width or area may, nevertheless, be utilized for single - family detached dwelling purposes, provided the width is not less than 40 feet at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 sq. ft.; and provided the yard setback requirements for single - family attached dwellings are met." All of these provisions are met in this case. The lot to be split off is of record prior to 1976. It is 40' in width. The lot area is approximately 5,120 sq. ft. The proposed use is a single- family home which would be set back 10' from the south lot line and 5.9' from the north lot line. The normal minimum side yard setback is 10 However, Section 35 -400, footnote 3b of the Zoning ordinance allows for a side yard setback of not less than 5' for one and two - family dwellings if all other setbacks are met, if there are no windows or doors along the side less than 10' from the property line and provided there is a 10 setback on the other side. Those requirements would also be met in this case. Another concern with resubdivisions is the location of existing structures - whether they might be built over the property line in question. In this case, the existing structures do not encroach on the lot to be split off. In fact, they are separated from it by another vacant lot. 4 -12 -90 -1- Application No. 90006 continued In light of the above, it appears there is no reason to deny the proposed resubdivision. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 4 -12 -90 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90008 Applicant: Charles Hillstrom Location: 5423 Fremont Avenue North Request: Resubdivision The applicant pp requests resubdivision approval to diva � pp divide off the extra vacant lot south of 5421 Fremont Avenue North which as h been combined for tax ur oses with the principal site ite for some ears. P p P Y The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north and south by single - family homes, on the east by Fremont Avenue North and on the west by a public alley. The area is generally a single - family neighborhood. The land at 5423 Fremont Avenue North consists of two 40' wide lots, Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Fairhaven Park Addition. The existing house and garage are located entirely on the northerly lot, Lot 4. A fence does cross the property line within the property. It appears it may be necessary to file a cross access easement for access across the northwest corner of the vacant lot, Lot 5, for cars to get to the garage on Lot 4. We would not oppose such an arrangement. The basis of the application are same as for Application No. 90006. The pre- existing lots are 40' wide, approximately 5,120 sq. ft. in area, and were of record prior to 1976. This makes them both buildable lots as long as all setbacks can be met. In this case, no proposed building plan has been submitted. A condition of the division should therefore, be that all setback requirements are met, that no variances are comprehended. The existing house and garage are entirely on the northerly lot. The dwelling is set back ack 13.2 from the lot line dividing Lot 4 and Lot 5. There is therefore no ordinance violation created by the proposed division. The proposal appears to be basically in order. Approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 4 -12 -90 -1- Application No. 90008 continued 4. No variances from City ordinance requirements are implied. Any future structures on Lot 5 are required to meet setback requirements. 5. The applicant shall execute and file a cross access easement over the northwest corner of Lot 5 prior to finalization of the resubdivision. Said cross access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 4 -12 -90 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90007 Applicant: Merila and Associates Location: 5929 Brooklyn Boulevard and 5830 Drew Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into two parcels the land at the Cross of Glory Church (5929 Brooklyn Boulevard) and a single - family residence at 5830 Drew Avenue North. The land in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the north by Ewing Avenue North and Admiral Place, on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard and the Brookdale West Professional Building, on the south by 5824 Drew Avenue North and 58 1/2 Avenue North, and on the west by Ewing Avenue North. The purpose of the plat is to combine the land owned by the church into a single parcel and to resolve some title problems between the church property and the Milo Carlson property at 5830 Drew Avenue North. The Carlson property, which includes a 35' wide strip of land north of the platted lot for the house, will also be combined into a single parcel. The church property includes Lots 3 through 10 and Outlot 1 of Block 2, Pearson's Northport 3rd Addition. It also includes portions of Lots 11, 13 and 14 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 216. The Carlson property includes a portion of Lots 13 and 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 216 and Lot 13, Block 1, Grimmes Addition. Under Section 35 -540 of the Zoning Ordinance, multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and which serve a single development and are under common ownership, are to be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. That is accomplished for both the church property and the Carlson property through this plat. The lots created by the proposed plat have the following characteristics: Lot Width Area Zoninct Use 1 irregular 241,122 s.f. R1 Church 2 110' 18,658 s.f. R1 single - family There is an existing 15' wide utility easement which runs through the proposed Lot 2 (Carlson property) . It runs along the north 15' of the old Lot 13, Block 1, Grimmes Addition parcel where the existing house is situated. Mr. Carlson wishes to construct a garage on the property. Because of the presence of the utility easement, the garage will have to be detached. An access to the Carlson property will be allowed across a driveway opening to the church property which lines up with Drew Avenue North. A cross access agreement should be filed with the titles to the property at the County. 4 -12 -90 -1- Application No. 90007 continued The proposed plat will resolve a title problem between the church and the Carlsons', but may create a new dispute between the church and the office building property abutting Brooklyn Boulevard. The surveyor believes he has discovered an error in a previous survey of the office site which gave the office a rectangle of land southeast of the building (labeled parcel 4 on the preliminary plat) . Six (6) parking stalls and a turnaround with a catch basin have been constructed in this area and have been used for some years by the office building. The church approached the owners of the office building about participating in the plat and resolving the dispute over this land in the process. The owners of the office building, however, have declined at this time to participate and believe that, even if a surveying error was made in the past, they now have ownership of the land through adverse possession. Therefore, there could be a dispute over the filing of this plat. This dispute cannot be arbitrated by the City though we acknowledge it exists. The City Attorney has advised that the Planning Commission and City Council process the plat, assuming it to be accurate. We are not qualified to judge the work of a registered land surveyor except as it relates to City requirements. The County Surveyor may do so. The City Attorney advises that the plat not be tabled or denied while the dispute exists, but rather that the dispute should be resolved directly by the parties involved through legal action if necessary. We, therefore, conclude that the plat is basically in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. All survey monuments associated with the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the final plat for filing. 4. A cross access agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the properties providing access across the proposed Lot 1 to Lot 2 in the area by Drew Avenue North. 4 -12 -90 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4 -23 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90006 - Richard Whitley DEPART;iganature ENT AP VAL: • - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x Planning Commission Application No. 90006 is a request for resubdivision approval to divide off a pre- existing vacant lot which has in the past been combined for tax purposes with two other • combined lots on which the residence at 5411 Fremont Avenue North is located. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its April 12, 1990 meeting. Minutes, information sheet, a map of the area and a site drawing are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions listed on pages 2 and 3 of the April 12 minutes. i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA APRIL 12, 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Mark Holmes and Kristen Mann. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Bertil Johnson is on vacation and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 29 1990 Chairperson Malecki called for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 29, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mann stated there should be a c orrection on page 8 of the minutes as she had voted to close the public hearing, not against. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the March 29, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 6� APPLICATION NO. 90006 (Richard Whitley) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for resubdivision approval to divide off a pre- existing vacant lot which has in the past been combined for tax purposes with two other combined lots, on which the residence at 5411 Fremont Avenue North is located. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90006 attached). The Secretary stated that this application is not a plat, but rather an action to acknowledge the uncombining of two legal lots of record which had been combined for tax purposes a number of years ago. He explained that the City Attorney had rendered an opinion about 10 years ago that the City could not prevent such an action and that these lots could be built on provided ordinance requirements q could be met. further • r that if, following the original co co mbination tion for tax purposes, a property owner built over a property line then the City would not be compelled to allow the uncombining of the lots in question. He stated, however, that this is not a factor in this situation. He noted that this application is for a determination and no public hearing is, therefore, required q - 4 -12 -90 Z Commissioner Bernards asked if the 5' setback indicated for the proposed house implies that there will be no openings, such as doors and windows, on the north side of the dwelling. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked when the lots were combined. The Secretary stated that he was not sure, but assumed that they were combined 20 -25 years ago. Commissioner Sander asked if the combination was considered to save tax money. The Secretary answered in affirmative. He stated when a property is combined for tax purposes and a building permit is issued to cross the common property line, the property cannot be uncombined as is being sought in this case. Commissioner Sander asked if the property would be a buildable lot. The Secretary stated that it would. Commissioner Sander asked if the other lot could be divided. The Secretary stated that it could, but this is not proposed in this case. Commissioner Sander stated she felt 40' lots are too narrow for today's standards. The Secretary stated the 1966 Comprehensive Plan encouraged the combination of small lots in the R2 zoned portion of the southeast neighborhood. He added that this was never realized and the City, during the 1970 was constantly facing requests to build on substandard lots. He stated that there had been only a few variance requests in the southeast neighborhood which had been approved and the Council finally decided to abandon the effort in 1976 when it adopted Section 35 -500. Commissioner Mann asked what the minimum lot width is in the R2 zoning district for a two - family dwelling. The Secretary stated it is 75' width and a minimum of 6,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Commissioner Mann asked if that meant two - family dwellings are prohibited on 40' lots. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything he wished to add regarding the application. Hearing nothing, she called for a motion for action on the application. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90006 (Richard Whitley) ) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve Application No. 90006 subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 4 -12 -90 2 3. The res ubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90008 (Charles Hillstrom) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for resubdivision approval to divide off the extra vacant lot south of 5421 Fremont Avenue North which has been combined for tax purposes with the principal site for, some years. He stated that this application is very similar to Application No. 90006 and that there is no public hearing required for this application. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90008 attached). The Secretary noted that there is a nonconformity with the setback for the existing house from the north property line. He added that the uncombining of the lots does not effect the nonconforming setback and, therefore, does not prevent the action being proposed. He noted that there is at, a minimum, a need for a cross access easement over Lot 5 to provide access to the existing garage on Lot 4, and depending on the property owner's preference, there might be a need to provide Lot 5 with the right to access over Lot 4 and possibly the need for an easement for parking as well. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Charles Hillstrom asked to what extent is the requirement of the cross access easement. The Secretary stated that it is necessary to give Lot 4 the right to access over Lot 5 in order to obtain access to the existing garage. Mr. Hillstrom asked if the language could be worked out with the surveyor. The Secretary stated that it could, but the language would have to be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the property before a building permit could be issued. Commissioner Sander asked if the easement is for both access to the garage and for parking. The Secretary stated it could be for both, depending on how the properties are going to be used. Mr. Hillstrom asked if this requirement is mandatory. The Secretary stated that he believed it was and that it is the owner's responsibility to provide the necessary easement document. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90008 _ Charles Hillstrom) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve Application No. 90008 subject to the following conditions: 4 -12 -90 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90006 Applicant: Richard Whitley Location: 5411 and 5415 Fremont Avenue North Request: Resubdivision The applicant requests resubdivision approval to divide off a pre- existing vacant lot which has in the past been combined for tax purposes with two other combined lots, on which the residence at 5411 Fremont Avenue North is located. The land in question is zoned R2 and is bound on the east by Fremont Avenue North, on the south by a single - family home, on the west by a public alley, and on the north by a single - family home. The area is generally a single- family neighborhood. The land at 5411 Fremont consists of three small lots, Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 1, Fairhaven Park Addition, which are each 40' wide and approximately 128' deep. The existing house and garage are entirely on the southerly lot, Lot 10. The resubdivision request is for the City to approve dividing off the northerly 40' lot, Lot 8, which is vacant. This is not a plat. The lots in question as pre- existing. All that is requested is that the northerly lot, Lot 8, no longer be combined for tax purposes with Lots 9 and 10. Under Section 35 -500 of the Zoning Ordinance, "a lot or parcel which was of legal record within the R1 or R2 zoning district on January 1, 1976, and which does not meet the requirements of [the] ordinance as to width or area may, nevertheless, be utilized for single - family detached dwelling purposes, provided the width is not less than 40 feet at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 sq. ft.; and provided the yard setback requirements for single- family attached dwellings are met." All of these provisions are met in this case. The lot to be split off is P of record prior to 1976. It is 40' in width. The lot area is approximately 5,120 sq. ft. The proposed use is a single - family home which would be set back 10' from the south lot line and 5.9' from the north lot line. The normal minimum side yard setback is 10 However, Section 35 -400 footnote 3b of the Zoning Ordinance allows for a side yard setback of not less than 5' for one and two - family dwellings if all other setbacks are met, if there are no windows or doors along the side less than 10' from the property line and provided there is a 10' setback on the other side. Those requirements would also be met in this case. Another concern with resubdivisions is the location of existing structures - whether they might be built over the property line in question. In this case, the existing structures do not encroach on the lot to be split off. In fact, they are separated from it by another vacant lot. 4 -12 -90 _1_ ,. Application No. 90006 continued In light of the above, it appears there is no reason to deny the proposed resubdivision. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with the Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. r 4 -12 -90 -2- 35-414 10. The following activities are prohibited: a Body work and painting. b. Motor vehicle parking, except that owners and employees automobiles and a maximum of three service vehicles may be parked. Automobiles being serviced may be parked for a maximum period of 48 hours at any one time. 11. The lawful use of land for any automobile service station existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the above regulations provided that the use is made to conform to these regulations except subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, within 12 months of the date that this ordinance is adopted. Subsection 3 o Section 35 -414 shall apply to all exterior additions, alterations, accessory buildings and signs erected or constructed after the effective date of this ordinance. 12. The owner and lessee shall be jointly and severally responsible for seeing that the above regulations are observed. V Section 35 -500. SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND PARCELS. of legal record within the R1 or R2 zoning district A on January 1, 1976, and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to width or area may, nevertheless, be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes, provided the width is not less than 40 feet at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 square feet; and provided that yard setback requirements for single family detached dwellings are met. . Section 35 -510. DRAINAGE WAYS. No obstruction, diversion, bridging or confining of the existing channel of any natural waterway, or any drainage swale approved as a part of the drainage system of a plat in the municipality through which surface water in time of storms naturally flows upon or across the land, shall be permitted without special permit. Before granting a special permit, the zoning official shall first find that the diversion, bridging, etc, will carry the amount of water usually likely to flow. The right is reserved to the municipality as an incident to the development of the municipality, including the construction of streets and gutters, ditches, etc., to cause considerable increases or decreases in the amount of water which would in a state of nature flow into and through such natural water channel or drainage swale. t r�rrro .. �ar�rrN� NN Nl r �� Q{� N N r�. • " �� . • .�iIwR ♦• ♦i � M �� # � I M be AR BROWN 0111111 Mile INS OWN MIM Mo mi Ml fee I � I • � I 1 I I _ 60— — r EK/STlNG z -SMAOY 14 T i I W000 FRA E M HOUSE 3P /LT ENTRY 6PWer PgSt°/nfnf , v ` \J`° Ptr Doc. No.4199425 , ,M NI 0 •.S j – 728. 22' -_yam_ _ _ _ _ p _ _ ; \a' �J Rr �. *BO j R H 161V CHAIN FENCE O Sew�i ease �r7ent PROPOSED HOUSE - OO Psi Ooc. vl.4148l07 N ,C � H GI O. 52.47 34.75 CL . FENCE 128. ZD % I � JN < 128./8 a �4 f1. Hl6N CNA /N L /NK FfNCL y g GARAGE c E.! /ST /N'G Q O Q /-STORY Q STUGCO O HousE a 3 FI. NIGH Chlq /N E /IST /NG �i� LINK FENCE /-STagY waoo `VI FRAME HOUSE %, . j l /4 ' cl ?I m 60--. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -23 -90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90008 - Charles Hillstrom DEPARTMENT APP ignature - title Director of Planning and Jnspecti on/�9 ,7 MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Planning Commission Application No. 90008 is a request for • resubdivision approval to divide off the extra vacant lot south of 5421 Fremont Avenue North which has been combined for tax purposes with the principal site for some years. This application was considered by the Planing Commission at its April 12, 1990 meeting. Minutes, information sheet, a map of the area and a site drawing are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions listed on page 4 of the April 12 minutes. • 3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. V APPLICATION NO. 90008 (Charles Hillstrom) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for resubdivision approval to divide off the extra vacant lot south of 5421 Fremont Avenue North which has been combined for tax purposes with the principal site for, some years. He stated that this application is very similar to Application No. 90006 and that there is no public hearing required for this application. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90008 attached). The Secretary noted that there is a nonconformity with the setback for the existing house from the north property line. He added that the uncombining of the lots does not effect the nonconforming setback and, therefore, does not prevent the action being proposed. He noted that there is at, a minimum, a need for a cross access easement over Lot 5 to provide access to the existing garage on Lot 4, and depending on the property owner's preference, there might be a need to provide Lot 5 with the right to access over Lot 4 and possibly the need for an easement for parking as well. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Charles Hillstrom asked to what extent is the requirement of the cross access easement. The Secretary stated that it is necessary to give Lot 4 the right to access over Lot 5 in order to obtain access to the existing garage. Mr. Hillstrom asked if the language could be worked out with the surveyor. The Secretary stated that it could, but the language would have to be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the property before a building permit could be issued. Commissioner Sander asked if the easement is for both access to the garage and for parking. The Secretary stated it could be for both depending ndin on how the properties a going P g P P re to g g be used. Mr. Hillstrom asked if this requirement is mandatory. The Secretary stated that he believed it was and that it is the owner's responsibility to provide the necessary easement document. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90008 (Charles Hillstrom) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve Application No. 90008 subject to the following conditions: 4 -12 -90 3 �I 1. The City ssessor y is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 3 The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 4. No variances from City ordinance requirements are implied. Any future structures on Lot 5 are required to meet setback requirements. 5. The applicant shall execute and file a cross access easement over the northwest corner of Lot 5 prior to finalization of the resubdivision. Said cross access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. I APPLICATION NO. 90007 (Merila and Associates) The Secretary introduced the last item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into two parcels the land at the Cross of Glory Church (5929 Brooklyn Boulevard) and a single - family residence at 5830 Drew Avenue North. He stated that a public hearing is required for the application and a notice was published in the newspaper. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90007 attached). Commissioner Holmes asked if the Commission needs to address the issue of the dispute between property owners. The Secretary stated it would have to be resolved between the property owners. Commissioner Bernards asked if the owners of the neighboring office building are aware of the property line conflict. The Secretary stated that it was his understanding that they have been contacted to participate in the platting process, but chose not to do so at this time. Commissioner Bernards asked if the position taken by the owners of the office building as to adverse possession is legal. The Secretary answered that it will have to be resolved by the property owners. Mr. James Merila, of Merila and Associates, representing Cross of Glory Church, stated than an error in the previous survey had been 4 -12 -90 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90008 Applicant: Charles Hillstrom Location: 5423 Fremont Avenue North Request: Resubdivision The applicant requests resubdivision approval to divide off the extra vacant lot south of 5421 Fremont Avenue North which has been combined for tax purposes with the principal site for some years. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north and south by single - family homes, on the east by Fremont Avenue North and on the west by a public alley. The area is generally a single - family neighborhood. The land at 5423 Fremont Avenue North consists of two 40' wide lots, Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Fairhaven Park Addition. The existing house and garage are located entirely on the northerly lot, Lot 4. A fence does cross the property line within the property. It appears it may be necessary to file a cross access easement for access across the northwest corner of the vacant lot, Lot 5, for cars to get to the garage on Lot 4. We would not oppose such an arrangement. The basis of the application are same as for Application No. 90006. The pre existing lots are 40' wide, approximately 5,120 sq. ft. in area, and were of record prior to 1976. This makes them both buildable lots as long as all setbacks can be met. In this case, no proposed building plan has been submitted. A condition of the division should, therefore, be that all setback requirements are met, that no variances are comprehended. The existing house and garage are entirely on the northerly lot. The dwelling is set back 13.2' from the lot line dividing Lot 4 and Lot 5. There is, therefore, no ordinance violation created by the proposed division. The proposal appears to be basically in order. Approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 4 -12 -90 _1_ r Application No. 90008 continued 4. No variances from City ordinance requirements are implied. Any future structures on Lot 5 are required to meet setback requirements. 5. The applicant shall execute and file a cross access easement over the northwest corner of Lot 5 prior to finalization of the resubdivision. Said cross access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 4 -12 -90 -2- �� �� ss tttttttttttt� tttttttr s t M N �� v v� � ~R .1�� �� � �r t�� M r �(ui:'•� st EARLE • . 1 , B ROWN �r r v �� r a .• 1 SCH OOL r r �� tttttttnr �� v mm �r� p y ► , MM pm ar ttttts a ��■ �� �� s � ��.. )s` �o�larr� N � r r r �� tttt.�•i� i ttttttr �ttr ttttttttr v ittttttA� 1•� 3 r N M • wn MEMO _ ��� �� fit• � t��� \ � a an • 111• ;� � •111: j • t 1 t �� � �� •O 31Y1S 3- 40 SMVI ]"1 tl30Nn Y33N17N3 IYN015S 310tld 63 M 315try 3tl Alnp Y K• t =YH= pNY NOISIAtl 3dnS1J3tllOAW tl3ONn �✓T' niH Ai NVl C 1 1 1 Af AP4.iH 1 • uo,�onaja 6u.�sira sa�oua0 00'00o.• 0-"4710ui wunaf {ua=LnuoW sa�oUaO • Paao�d �luar�nsroW s� oua ! O o 09 Cb c J � 1 0 JWYA's pOOM Ad'Ol S -a C 'J,v,1 sirs Il • • L. iH . Y. a � 0 � h' t•'•'• 4:gtl9 .aav`sy A'nr7 Ai�irr • { £� -- t O � Qq e qb� 4q1 Q : - o ... 19 2 8Z� M C T 10 0 O 2i d d� m q y A So t,, 1 � � • _ 1 .. m r •4 4' �A I O O : O d r .?S/JOH kVV,d'-v o00M 9On2y evil .c d'O1 S -Z 9Hi1 SiY3 —WHO H91H f�.f y S-, ` 'zo OD I. 09 J� L ' 9 r 0 i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -23 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90007 - Merila and Associates DEPARTMENT L: a - I-, - = Signature - title Di rector of Planning and nspecti on/' MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Planning Commission Application No. 90007 is a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into two parcels the land at • the Cross of Glory Church (5929 Brooklyn Boulevard) and a single - family residence at 5830 Drew Avenue North. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its April 12, 1990 meeting. Minutes, information sheet, a map of the area and a copy of the preliminary plat are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions listed on pages 5 and 6 of the April 12 minutes. 1. The City Assessor is directed to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County. 2. The resubdivision involves only pre- existing lots that comply with the provisions of Section 35 -500. No new lots are created. 3 The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 4. No variances from City ordinance requirements are implied. Any future structures on Lot 5 are required to meet setback requirements. 5. The applicant shall execute and file a cross access easement over the northwest corner of Lot 5 prior to finalization of the resubdivision. Said cross access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90007 (Merila and Associates) The Secretary introduced the last item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into two parcels the land at the Cross of Glory Church (5929 Brooklyn Boulevard) and a single - family residence at 5830 Drew Avenue North. He stated that a Public hearing is required for the application and a notice was published in the newspaper. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90007 attached). Commissioner Holmes asked if the Commission needs to address the issue of the dispute between property owners. The Secretary stated it would have to be resolved between the property owners. Commissioner Bernards asked if the owners of the neighboring office building are aware of the property line conflict. The Secretary stated that it was his understanding that they have been contacted to participate in the platting process, but chose not to do so at this time. Commissioner Bernards asked if the position taken by the owners of the office building as to adverse possession is legal. The Secretary answered that it will have to be resolved by the property owners. Mr. James Merila, of Merila and Associates, representing Cross of Glory Church, stated than an error in the previous survey had been 4 -12 -90 4 discovered and that error will robabl be resolved through p y g the Hennepin County Surveyor's office. He explained that a joint parking agreement between the church and Boulevard Properties (owner of the office building) had been initiated some years ago. He stated that the office use had been changed to a medical use, therefore, the property owner was to acquire additional parking elsewhere. He stated that the office building owner had acquired a parcel to the south that could provide the additional parking should the joint parking agreement no longer be necessary. Mr. Merila stated that the church has a long range plan to expand, therefore, they will need more parking in the future. He explained that now would be a good time to resolve the problem as the joint parking agreement will end when the expansion is completed. He stated the church will notify the property owner of the office building when the expansion does go forward. Commissioner Holmes asked if the land dispute will be there whether the Commission passes or denies the application. The Secretary stated that the plat combining the parcels in question is to resolve the dispute between the church and Milo Carlson, however, the problem between the church and the office building will not be resolved now. The Secretary stated the problem is there regardless and the City Attorney advises the City not to hold up the plat. Mr. Merila stated that the filing of the final plat will bring the issue of the error in the survey to the attention of the Hennepin County Surveyor. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90007 Merila and Associates) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 90007 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 4 -12 -90 5 3. All survey monuments associated with the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the final plat for filing. 4. A cross access agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the properties providing access across the proposed Lot 1 to Lot 2 in the area by Drew Avenue North. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Chairperson 4 -12 -90 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90007 Applicant: Merila and Associates Location: 5929 Brooklyn Boulevard and 5830 Drew Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into two parcels the land at the Cross of Glory Church (5929 Brooklyn Boulevard) and a single - family residence at 5830 Drew Avenue North. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by Ewing Avenue North and Admiral Place, on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard and the Brookdale West Professional Building, on the south by 5824 Drew Avenue North and 58 1/2 Avenue North, and on the west by Ewing Avenue North. The purpose of the plat is to combine the land owned by the church into a single parcel and to resolve some title problems between the church property and the Milo Carlson property at 5830 Drew Avenue North. The Carlson property, which includes a 35' wide strip of land north of the platted lot for the house, will also be combined into a single parcel. The church property includes Lots 3 through 10 and Outlot 1 of Block + 2 Pe arson s Northport 3rd Addition. It also includes portions of L + P Lots 11, 13 and 14 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 216. The Carlson property includes a portion of Lots 13 and 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 216 and Lot 13, Block 1, Grimmes Addition. Under Section 35 -540 of the Zoning Ordinance, multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and which serve a single development and are under common ownership, are to be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. That is accomplished for both the church property and the Carlson property through this plat. The lots created by the proposed plat have the following characteristics: Lot Width Area Zonin a Use 1 irregular 241,122 s.f. R1 Church 2 110' 18,658 s.f. R1 single - family There is an existing 15' wide utility easement which runs through the proposed Lot 2 (Carlson property) . It runs along the north 15' of the old Lot 13, Block 1, Grimmes Addition parcel where the existing house is situated. Mr. Carlson wishes to construct a garage on the property. Because of the presence of the utility easement, the garage will have to be detached. An access to the Carlson property will be allowed across a driveway opening to the church property which lines up with Drew Avenue North. A cross access agreement should be filed with the titles to the property at the County. 4 -12 -90 -1- Application No. 90007 continued The proposed plat will resolve a title problem between the church and the Carlsons', but may create a new dispute between the church and the office building property abutting Brooklyn Boulevard. The surveyor believes he has discovered an error in a previous survey of the office site which gave the office a rectangle of land southeast of the building (labeled parcel 4 on the preliminary plat) . Six (6) parking stalls and a turnaround with a catch basin have been constructed in this area and have been used for some years by the office building. The church approached the owners of the office building about participating in the plat and resolving the dispute over this land in the process. The owners of the office building, however, have declined at this time to participate and believe that, even if a surveying error was made in the past, they now have ownership of the land through adverse possession. Therefore, there could be a dispute over the filing of this plat. This dispute cannot be arbitrated by the City though we acknowledge it exists. The City Attorney has advised that the Planning Commission and City Council process the plat, assuming it to be accurate. We are not qualified to judge the work of a registered land surveyor except as it relates to City requirements. The County Surveyor may do so. The City Attorney advises that the plat not be tabled or denied while the dispute exists, but rather that the dispute should be resolved directly by the parties involved through legal action if necessary. We, therefore, conclude that the plat is basically in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. All survey monuments associated with the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the final plat for filing. 4. A cross access agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the properties providing access across the proposed Lot 1 to Lot 2 in the area by Drew Avenue North. 4 -12 -90 -2- . Section 35 -520 FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. Every parcel proposed for some use permitted by the terms of this ordinance shall abut a public right - of -way, provided that where unusual circumstances prevail, the City Council may waive this requirement in favor of a reasonable alternative. If a parcel does not abut a public right -of -way, the applicant may cause an appropriate right -of -way to be dedicated to the municipality provided that any such dedication must conform to the official street layout plan, or in the event the official plan does not comprehend such an appropriate right-of-way, the dedication shall conform to a street layout plan meeting the requirements of Section 15 -106 of these ordinances, approved by the Director of Public Works and adopted by the City Council. Section 35 -530 BUILDINGS IN R1 AND R2 DISTRICTS. In R1 and R2 districts every building hereafter erected'or structurally altered shall be located on a lot, and in no case shall there be more than one principal building on one lot. The term "principal building" shall be given its common, ordinary meaning; in case .of doubt, or on any question of interpretation, the decision shall rest with the zoning official. 1. No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered, or moved, within six feet of the principal building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall. No accessory building shall be erected, altered, or moved within six feet of another accessory building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall. 2. Accessory buildings may not be erected within the side yard adjacent to the street of a corner lot. 3. No accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in height. 4. No basement, cellar, garage, tent, or accessory building shall at any time be used as a residence or dwelling, temporarily or permanently. 5. All dwellings shall be on permanent foundations which comply with the State Building Code and which are solid for the complete circumference of the dwelling, except that accessory uses such as screened or enclosed porches, canopies, decks, balconies, stairs, etc., may be placed on a noncontinuous permanent foundation as approved by the Building Official. 6. The width and the depth of the main portion of any dwelling built after July 23, 1983, shall be no less than 18 v Se ction 35 -540. COMBINATION OF LAND PARCELS. Multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development use and which are under common ownership shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. FIR NOW ME SOME rr N SIR SEEM sH 1 1 wp� 9000 10- ir IF A �� ��. +���� �� `�' � • • i ■ � r� rrM� a 1 � r T All .,•+� - _-� ' l t wt..;r� - rorwo r.,rovwsr>rw! ' � `; I -- r • � � P.oRCEL 1 —� —�- . , � � : - PiC.FCEL ¢ '' : 6.: ': � � i b 'a J v ..t I ' ✓r Tiles \ y � r I I I }I II . 1 .,•n __ -. _ � ..., --� . a :► , t � J �6 NDE Greenhouse & Nursery, Inc. April 18, 1990 Hennepin Recycling Group 4141 Douglas Drive N. Crystal, MN 55422 Lynde & McLeod Development Company, Inc. is currently providing the City of Maple Grove with a yard waste drop off site and also disposal of that yard waste on the same 147 acre site located southwest of the intersection of CSAH #81 and CSAH #121 on 101st Ave. N. This site has been operating since Saturday, April 7, 1990. We propose that HRG contract with us for the same services. If HRG chooses our site, we will provide: - A fenced gravel site of approximately 30,000 sq. ft. - Hours of operation - Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 7 :00 PM Saturday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM - Control of the site by a Site Operator located at the entrance. - All traffic will be logged in by the Site Operator, and assigned to the appropriate drop area. - Residents will be required to show their driver's license. - The site will be secured and illuminated at night to avoid unauthorized use. - Disposal of all Yard Waste received at the site using our equipment by landspreading at a depth of 3" or less and incorporation into the soil. The cost to HRG would be $5,000 per month to cover site improvements and fixed expenses, plus $3.00 per cubic yard of material received for landspreading. This program would be for private residents only. We have been contracting directly with commercial haulers and lawn services, and will continue to do so as long as our capacity permits. 9293 Pineview Lane N. • Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 -6519 Telephone: (612) 420 -4400 Fax: (612) 420 -9529 We have attached a copy of our contract with Maple Grove. We would prefer to use the same document with HRG. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have, and will try to address any concerns. This is a wholly owned site, and is available for your use immediately. Sincerely, A LYNDis 0 EVELO ME COMPANY Edward S. L de Pre den. �, 471�14 R. J - r McLeod Vi e Pre�ident I � I �` t • x d �,� R- t G• . 11 '. � � � � p�•:�� �fao � ��.. ••`�!i 4�� wit "�`, 1 uuw 1111.: C M - ♦ _► �_ • ,� �, � t ■!47 ea. `e an • i' �',^I'�,.';+, uu■ was :ii' sal `, >v � ■.�� �� ■/ , C' ,� : =�11 \, �i?L� �; ■'�'': " y •`� :® I��te� i i3� '. I�nun►�e�111111u��� ®� :� �� ►%1 � /111 1[MUlrl� IIIIIIdlEI IIIIis� 11111 1 M -- i EI��� b -la ■�. I ✓ : i{ 1 vMfR'+� it ff /4r�' 1i v (Ri4R{ ry Ik b r; �� _ � ' \`i ■^�, w Y 1 a 3�'�}•:��a qrR � �j I _ ;1 ���� a ?9 ►����y r.� . ■rr l�� .�. �� �! p MIN1t as wm� agleam ►.1 � .��� '� i .:„:.awe ►� � �� �iN81�U 111111IIIII ��� I �� ,il►Illlii uon ��I:ttl � -• - uf..:.perea. C� . -• v� � +:� { - '� eve +.1� � �� ®� C� �w: :: 'Oisaii � ��: � � � • �'' [I �� C� i� � �11�R 11`Zi .�: C:, :� � t'r� � R�i X111111 ,:. l�1 ?� •® . , a' 4 I art■ .►, *n.0 . '� _ �11�I ■o ■■ /III R QH_ I �� 1 \I tlprl��r. -..'.: - 'nom•' � � � � •::�,.rF , m RH !i =• •�' lii�..rll :: Iliu- ON 1 n.. �a. �Ij9r�. �,� t hy. � - - a� 111 - ti ll ` P S ''�i39n 11 .' � ♦ � � ' � �� 'alt . � " , � ' • �• ° ♦� � Ilrl {iasa ,�� , • • ;.P.e ON CIA ■■■■�� ��'� �/Zi �� au N 1� \ \x" rrlS u.u■■ I ®.. o "\I 11 i � � , ,'rC :I�,H}ti : •1 � � ? -� `• — �►' ial % /"' /Ob D E V E L O P M E N T A L T E R N A T I V E S t APPROXIMATE LIMITS 1 OF RIGHT OF WAY 1 69TH AV E. N0. 821 811 801 711 707 507 501 421 419 4113 401 _ 1 SPARS z ra z u N z cc =r a a a Z > or NEESE lu r a w 0 3 6f m f% co — cli Lo 13 12 11 01 10 9 8 7 r cli 5 DURLAND m ,n I 14 � 13 12 11 10 1 THEISEN m 2 m 9 STAFFORD co `o r 2 r - -- — ° m m 3 4 0 5 6 8 r FISH m N o -D I r ko to — — — — -- 68TH AVE. N0. r N 6736 r _ r 'n = CAOUETTE r RASCHKE ti i--; r _ O 6730 r Z O CROSBY r CROSBY - - Z r W Z z 0 6726 r p - __ 7 - --- uj 11J Z ADAMCZAKr Q w — - - -- — - -1- BRADLEY Q Q 6720 r �D -- -- W NORSTRUD r L►J - - -- L Q U Z h 67 ARSON I BECKMAN cr- --- _ 6706 J = MUE LL. Lk r f(,ItSS (I) U co -- -- v 81RI)SH r - .____....._ -_ ILI 420 r� EkII;M SON o i 67TH A �`— V E NO GRAPHK SCALE 0 50 100 200 300 EXHIBIT 1 i { APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF RIGHT OF WAY 1 1 69TH AV E. NO. i 821 811 801 711 707 (9 507 501 421 419 3 N 401 = SPARS 7 2 2 U Z N a m z w w a r N a a r Z J W o NEESE m Z w U m f D Go 4 Q 9 8 7, x 6 5 4 3 2 -- o, o DURLAND Z � a M _ I 14 X13 12 II I I , THEISEN LID to I co CD 2 m 9 2 STAFFORD ID O N m ° m 3 4 0 5 6 7 8 , FISH m N - -- N 68TH AVE. NO. 6736 _ � M CAOUE O 673 TTE i RASCHKE r F: D f 0 Z O CROSBY f CROSBY Z 0 r w Z Z 0 6726 f �j 111 w z ADAMCZAK f (� Q Q L BRADLEY Q 7 6720 ORSTRUD f W N if 111 Q X Z = Q � 6712 i �n 7 Q U_ w N CARSON BECKMAN a Q r a � 6706 � � U m Z MUELLER + FORSS N Q U BiROSH , _ 111 to 420 i E.I SON o 3 67TH A V E. NO. GRAPHK SCALE 0 50 tOO 200 300 EXHIBIT 2 X ' APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF RIGHT OF WAY 1 { 69TH AVE. N0. j 821 811 801 711 707 13 507 501 421 419 4,13 401 1 p = ZO SPARS m 2 Z U N Z N =l a a a F Z -j > Zoo NEESE ro c ow o 3 f m E� m 4 3 1 w 4 6 5 DURLAND D 1 13 X12 11 10 — r co t THEISEN m CD O 0 2 m 3 STAFFORD �o CD m - a) C 3 4 05 6 7 8 2 / FISH co N I Io i N 68TH AVE. N0. 6736 , M = CAOUETTE i RASCHKE r I O Q 6730 , m Z O CROSBY r CROSBY Z O ! to w Z Z 0 6726 GD 7 w LJ Z ADAMCZAKf a Q Q > uj BRADLEY a Q h 6720 Ask X N Q W NORSTRUDf w Q Z = 6712 Z } V- BECKMAN J Q U lll CARSON 1 r O r 6706 e r U m i = MUELLER FORSS B t N Q Q V ~ IROSH 1 _ w to 420 ERICKSON 0 67TH AVE N0. GRAPHK SCALE 0 50 100 200 300 EXHIBIT 3 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF RIGHT OF WAY 1 r { 1 69TH AV E. N0. 821 811 801 711 707 (D 507 501 421 419 4113 401 r- = Zr SPARS Z Z U N Z N =r ID N W K QI -- M -- M a v w r w m fl NEESE t — -- c 6 12 11 ?o 9 , 8 7 3 ' r N 5 "- T O / DURLAND 4 co M I 13 312 11 10 -- N n m I THEISEN co m O -3 m � 2 m ' STAFFORD N O _ N 2 1 co CD 3 4 ,5 6 7 8 � FISH CD N r b I) 68TH AVE. N0. L I / N 1 673 CAOUETTE 1 RASCHKE I ID _- Z 6730 T Z O CROSBY r CROSBY N n LL1 Z O r io _...._.. _.. �J Z o 6726 Ld r Q Q Ld W Z ADAMCZAKI Q 7 uj BRADLEY N X - -- - -- - -- Q 6720 tnD Q lW NORSTRUD W Z = Q U Z 6712 r - 7 O } U1 LARSON 1 BECKMAN t U ( Q 6706 r n m J Q T MUELLER / FORSS N BIROSH r w 67TH 420 r ERICKSON 3 3 AVE. N0. GRAPHK SCALE O 50 100 200 300 EXHIBIT 3A X APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF RIGHT OF WAY 1 f 69TH AVE. N0. 821 811 801 711 707 (D 507 501 421 419 4,13 401 - -- 6 I It x ZO SPARS co Z 2 U -1 Z N Q, ID Q = Q cc N ul O w Q I N a W Z I- _ -i > Zr NEESE v) M K, Z U Q 0 Z 0' m co c w 0 3 m f U I 2 3, 4 5 ' a r N U U r DURLAND m 3 OD , p U) r tD , THEISEN � co r — `° co 0 ID CD m 12 i STAFFORD N O N 1 m 6 10 / N `fl In ° 13 r FISH m N ko u 68TH AVE. N0. 1 N 6736 ' CAOUETTE , RASCHKE r 1 Z 6730 r _ Z O CROSBY r CROSBY Ld Z 0 r D - - -- w Z 0 6726 r Q W Z ADAMCZAKr cr Q 7 W BRADLEY N X Q l 6720 Q Q w NORSTRUD ' W L Z = X 6712 J < U Z V-- LARSON BECKMAN r j O >- W N U w Q 0 6706 , p m MUELLER r FORSS Q U BIROSH , W 67TH 420 ERICKSON O ?� AVE. N0. GRAPII6C SCALE 0 50 100 200 300 EXHIBIT -4 APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF RIGHT OF WAY 69TH AVE. N0. 821 811 801 711 707 (D 507 501 421 419 4+13 401 o �� y =1 SPARS t Z 2 U N Z N a1 m O J Q y. a a W 4 IO H Z > pl NEESE OD ID M � � 3 a� W o 3 m�� 4 3 .2 W I 9 Q t cli 8 + DURLAND m j M � ^ 7 1 THEISEN o r x n 'Z rj m 6 3 2 STAFFORD 3 4 j 5 4 FISH co N I U -- 68TH AVE. N0. N 6736 _ CAOUETTE ` RASCHKE ro F �O 1 6730 , 4+ Z 6 CROSBY i CROSBY r Z Z LLj O > O 6726 Q W liJ Z Z ADAMCZAK n X Q > W BRADLEY N X Q ] 6720 W Q LLJ NORSTRUD w Q Z = 6712 > � LL" BECKMAN - J Q U ZII N LARSON L O 0 6706 + r U m = MUELLER FORSS r Q V BIROSH 67TH 4 2 0 ERICKSON O?� AVE. N0. I GRAPHK SCALE O 50 100 200 300 EXHIBIT 5 I � 1 { 1 APPROXIMATE LIMIT / OF RIGHT OF WAY al dn 1 1 f 1 69TH AVE. N0. 821 811 801 711 707 (D 507 501 421 419 4 401 ° x Z/ SPARS m Z Z U J Z N QI N t N w Z K 2 W W a 1 n ^ n y z I a 1 w w Zo I NEESE m -- - -- -- ( w 2 3 m 4 w o 3 7 m E/ ID t DURLAND ro 1 c 6 I ID � 1 8 7 EYO QN I THEISEN Lo co m n - - - - - -I - t OD m IO �. �� E 2 I STAFFORD _ to - - - --J i- m - -T - -- 3 1 1 1 N 1 1 -- CD � II 2 i 0 3 ; 4 15 4 1 FISH m N I w U) - - - -- -- 68TH AVE. N0. # N 6736 I _ CAOUETTE 1 RASCIIKE n 1 D -- Z - 6730 I 0 O CROSBY 1 CROSBY N - - Z O I t- W Z O w Z O 6726 1 Q > w Z, ADAMCZAKI Q 7 W BRADLEY N - -- X — — — Q E" 6720 I r- Q U NORS TRUD I w u- imf = w CARSON I BECKMAN 6706 J Q = MUELLER I FORSS t N Q U BIROSH / W 67TH m 420 1 ERICKSON o 3 AVE. N0. GRAPHK SCALE O 50 100 200 300 EXHIBIT 6 i COLFAX AVE. N0. A I I D n QD D m � B R Y A NT AVE . NO. 68oO 6g08 6816 6824 6832 6840 OD N -� m = m k I < 0 6819 6825 M 6801 6807 6813 m o_ 6831 ALDRICH AVE. NO. Z 0 I N �� EVANSPN = Ln 1 M: ANAS 1 0 m 0) 11 i ... O I LOT 2 BLK 1 Sy�pNCO 3$ RACE M51RON6 F �/ CAMDEN AVE. N0. __-ro r i N \,`VAN!bN I LW I ` 1 U = � OUTREACH x WENHOLZ O N r � A � � STREET N0. MCLEAN ro rn 5TH d n m n m 0� Z 0� D A V n J A ID co C D- � N D N p c O) I� gEVERS x� m z c n I m x m N m m w m I Z O A o m m O n z o m - �� ti z o m N N 3 m { m 6857 O j ' z Z 6729 6731 6021 6825 68271 6851 701 6707 6715 6725 ���i�VER RD. T.H. 252 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/23/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IT DESCRIPTION: FOOT PROTECTION POLICY *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: °= g No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Brooklyn Center employee safety committee has developed a foot protection policy which establishes standards for wearing protective footwear in certain City departments. Heavy leather • work shoes or boots would be required to be worn by employees in the specified departments. As a further safety measure, the policy encourages employees to wear steel toe, puncture resistant sole shoes or boots. If approved by the city council, the policy would allow the City to pay $35 to each employee not more than once annually for partial reimbursement of the cost of the optional footwear. (Thirty-five dollars is the approximate difference in price between a leather work boot and a steel toe work boot.) Please see the attached memorandum from Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector which discusses OSHA requirements and cost implications of a foot protection policy. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve the City of Brooklyn Center Foot Protection Policy. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUBJECT: FOOT PROTECTION POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE: AUTHORIZATION BY CITY MANAGER: DATE: PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to prevent or reduce the severity of injury to the toes of those exposed to hazards. PROCEDURE A. All employees shall wear footwear appropriate to their employment position. Persons assigned to park maintenance, street maintenance, public utilities, and vehicle maintenance divisions; persons engaged in building inspection and engineering inspection /survey; golf course maintenance personnel; and all others so designated shall wear heavy leather work shoes or boots which are in good repair. Employees of these divisions may not wear canvas shoes, sneakers, sandals, thongs, or similar type footwear on the job. B. Employees in the work units listed in Section A may wear steel toe, puncture resistant sole shoes or boots. For employees in these work units who purchase steel toe, puncture resistant sole shoes or boots, not more than one time per calendar year the City of Brooklyn Center shall pay $35 to each employee for partial reimbursement of the cost of this optional footwear. C. Employees who choose to be partially reimbursed by the City of Brooklyn Center for the optional footwear described in Section B must submit to his or her supervisor a foot protection reimbursement form and proof of purchase of the optional footwear. The supervisor will then submit this documentation to the personnel coordinator for final approval. Reimbursement will be issued for purchases made on or after the effective date of this policy. SCOPE This policy applies to all full -time, part -time, and seasonal employees in the work units listed in Section A. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOOT PROTECTION REIMBURSEMENT FORM EMPLOYEE NAME: to DEPARTMENT /DIVISION: DESCRIPTION OF ITEM PURCHASED (include brand name, style features such as 8 inch or 6 inch boot): BUSINESS WHERE PURCHASED: (NAME) (ADDRESS) CITY STATE ZIP DATE PURCHASED: TOTAL COST OF PURCHASE: $ I declare under the penalties of law that this claim is just and correct. Signature of Claimant: Date: PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND A COPY OF YOUR RECEIPT TO YOUR SUPERVISOR. Approved by Supervisor Date Approved for Payment Date by Personnel Coordinator Code No. (SUPERVISORS SHOULD SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE PERSONNEL COORDINATOR AT CITY HALL.) February 8, 1990 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector SUBJ: City Policy Concerning Foot Protection To assist in the development of a City policy on foot protection, I have discussed with Minnesota OSHA its requirements, and have reviewed the history of foot injuries suffered by Public Works employees. OSHA Requirements The OSHA policy on safety shoe requirements is somewhat ambiguous. The regulations do not require safety shoes to be worn during any specific activity. However, the regulations do state that proper protective equipment shall be provided and worn when there is any danger of injury. In other words, the regulation requires the City to require employees to wear safety shoes when there is a danger of foot injury, and that the City must reimburse the employees for 100 percent of the purchase cost. There are no guidelines for establishing which work tasks present a danger of foot injury, and which not. During an inspection, OSHA would review the City's accident history and determine if repetitive foot injuries had been occurring. It would then review work procedures, and using the accident history and "common sense" would identify certain tasks for which the City must require safety shoes. It would then expect the City to provide the safety shoes. The City may require safety shoes as a condition of employment; unless the employee meets the 100 percent reimbursement requirement above, the City is not then obligated to provide any reimbursement. The OSHA representative noted that most public and private employers which require that safety shoes be worn at all times participate in the cost of the shoes for employees who would not have been required by OSHA to wear them. Most commonly, that participation is up to $40 per pair. Also to be noted is the OSHA requirement that the employer is responsible for assuring that any required personal proective equipment is in good repair, whether it was purchased by the employer or not. Thus, if the City requires that safety shoes be worn, the City must periodically inspect the shoes. If the City did not require safety shoes, but encouraged their use and reimbursed part of the cost, we would not be subject to this � requirement. Foot In I have reviewed the cases of foot injuries sustained by City employees over the past five years. No cases were reported in 1989 or 1988; one case occurred in 1987, two in 1986, and one in 1984. 1985 was an unusual year in which seven foot injuries were reported. The following are brief descriptions of the cases, noting the employee's department and if the injury could have been prevented or mitigated by safety shoes. Because the exact nature and affected area of the foot injury is not noted, some injuries are listed as 'Possibly preventable,' depending on where on the foot the injury occurred. 1987: Government Buildings: Employee bruised toe and foot on railing when kicking power cord out of his way. Possibly preventable. 1986: Streets: Employee burnt and blistered foot when he stepped in hot tar. Not preventable. 1985: Streets: Employee bruised foot and toe when piece of broken -up sidewalk fell on foot. Probably preventable. Streets: Foot was bruised when employee dropped a whacker on his foot. Possibly preventable. Parks: Employee bruised foot and toe, and tore off toenail when he dropped a log on his foot while chipping logs. Probably preventable. Streets: Employee cracked bone in foot when log fell on foot while loading logs on a truck. Possibly preventable. Three other non- preventable injuries occurred to non- Public Works employees. 1984: Streets: Temporary employee hurt left heel when he jumped out of a car on a hoist from a height of five feet. Not preventable. Recommendation Although no foot or toe injuries have been reported in the past two years, the several incidents in 1985-illustrate some potentially dangerous work tasks. It is possible that OSHA might reach back that far and require the City to require safety shoes whenever a task involves lifting and/or loading heavy items, such as logs or broken -up concrete. These activities are often irregular and unpredictable. Employees who are more regularly exposed to possible foot injury, the mechanics, do not seem to have a recent history of accidents. It is probably not practical to require some employees to wear safety shoes and other not. It is also probably not practical to require all employees to wear safety shoes when some will probably never be exposed to any risk. The most practical solution would be to strongly recommend that Public Works employees wear safety shoes, and provide a reimbursement of up to $40, perhaps up to once a year. This recommendation can be reinforced by a visit from a manufacturer such as Lehigh. Potential Cost Based on the positions authorized in the 1990 budget, the following are the potential costs of various recommendations. 1990 Authorized Positions ------------------------- Streets: 1 supervisor; 11 maintenance II; 1 dispatcher Vehicles: 3 mechanics; 1 night service person Parks: 1 supervisor; 7 maintenance II Utilities: 1 supervisor; 6 maintenance II Engineering: 1 tech IV; 3 tech III Admin: 1 director; 1 engineer; 1 superintendent 28 maintenance II, mechanics 1 superintendent 3 supervisors 1 engineer 1 dispatch 1 director 4 techs 36 36 39 Total Assume no 100% reimbursements, require all employees to wear safety shoes: 36 * $40 = $1,440 OR 39 * 40 = 1,560 Assume no 100% reimbursement, recommend all employees wear safety shoes, 50% do: 18 * $40 = $ 720 OR 21 * 40 = 840 Final Comments There are two remaining issues which I have not addressed: the policy regarding part -time or seasonal employees, and reimbursements for employees who aleady choose to wear safety shoes and have paid the entire cost themselves. lQ (ALMEMO) ��• DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Department of Finance DATE: April 12, 1990 SUBJECT: SEWER BACK -UPS Today, I received notice from the claims adjusters for our insurance carrier, LMCIT, that they had denied claims for damages caused by sewer back -ups which had been submitted by Brooklyn Center residents. If the residents' "homeowner's insurance carriers also deny payment, we may hear from the residents asking the City to reimburse them for their losses. Coincidently, the April League of Minnesota Cities Magazine just arrived on my desk with another article on sewer back -ups. The January issue also addressed the subject. I have attached both articles. I recommend that the articles be passed on to the City Council. The Council may find the information helpful in determining if the City should consider either paying such claims or adopting a policy which would permit the payment of such claims. The article points out that cities cannot pay such claims unless the city is legally obligated to pay the claim because the city's negligence caused the damage or that the city has previously entered into a contract with utility users to pay for damages caused by sewer back -ups. The article advises against paying such claims or adopting a policy which, by contract, would pay for damages caused by sewer back -ups. The best reason for not doing so is that it would subject the city to potentially unlimited financial risk. While the city could limit the amount it will reimburse each homeowner, there's no way to limit the number of homeowners that could be entitled to reimbursement if such a policy was adopted. An exceptionally heavy storm which could flood the sewers with infiltrated stormwater and which knocks out power to sewer lift stations could result in thousands of dollars in damages which would have to be reimbursed. It is my recommendation that we continue our present policy of leaving the payment of sewer back -up claims to our insurance carrier who pays only when it determines that the City has a legal obligation to do so. I would also recommend that the City try to provide it's citizens with the information that they need in order to protect themselves through their own insurance. Paul W. Holmlund, Director L M LOSS CONTROL C I QUARTERLY League of Minnesota Cities T Winter 1990 A publication of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust No. 7 Sewer back -ups: what every homeowner should know Kristi Haselman, LMCIT, and Peter Tritz, LMCIT Administrator Sewer back -ups are a problem facing Other factors can cause back -ups as insurance company won't cover it. It's every city's residents. Claims for dam- well. Tree roots can grow into and a good idea for homeowners to check ages to people's homes caused by obstruct the lines; or extraordinary their policies or ask their agents about sewer back -ups probably lead to more amounts of rainfall can infiltrate the this coverage. misunderstanding and hard feelings system and overload it. Cities should try to find ways to get than any other single kind of claim. It The courts have made it clear that this information to their citizens. might be possible to avoid some of the city is liable for sewer back -up Reprinting this article in a city newslet- these problems if homeowners are damages if, and only if, the city's ter or including copies of it with the The made aware of three basic points negligence caused the damages. re utility bills are a couple of possibilities. regarding sewer back -ups and the are four basic guestions the courts look For copies of this article to distribute resulting damage: at in deciding this issue. The city is to citizens, contact Kristi Haseiman, 1. The city is not automatically liable liable if the answer to all four is yes LMCIT, 183 University Ave. E., St. for resulting damages whenever a 1. Was there a defect in the city's, Paul, MN 55101, (612) 227 -5600. sewer backs up. The city is only liable sewer line? This might be a tree for those damages if the back -up was root, a foreign substance such as caused by the city's negligence. grease or a diaper that has found its 2. Manv homeowners insurance pol- way into the line, a sag or break in the icies exclude damage resulting from line, or bad design of the line. sewer back -ups. Thus, homeowners 2. Did the city know, or should often end up looking to the city to 2av the city known, about the. _their damages when their own home- defect? For example, were there pre - owner's insurer denies their claim. vious complaints or reports of prob- 3. Some homeowners insurance lems, should the problem have been companies do provide sewer back -up discovered dLring routine inspection or coverage. Therefore, it is possible for maintenance of the lines? homeowners to protect themselves 3. Did the city fail to correct the amst this risk. defect within a reasonable time Minnesota courts have made it clear after learning of it? that the city doesn't and can't guaran- 4 Did that failure by the city_ tee that its sewers will never back up. cause daina es? A sewer system is not a closed system. Thus, if the city exercises reason- Any resident or business that is hooked able care in inspecting and maintaining up to it dumps waste in it. Some of the its sewer lines, and if the city responds things dumped into the sewer system to problems in a reasonable manner can clog the system. Large amounts of and time, the city is not liable when grease from restaurants and disposable sewer back -ups occur. This is why it is diapers are two common items that very important for the city to perform cause problems. While cities can adopt regular maintenance and inspection of rules prohibiting dumping these items its sewers and to keep good records of into the sewer and can try to educate when that maintenance and inspection the public about the problems they was done. cause, there's really no way the city Of course, if the city is not liable, can absolutely prevent this from that may mean that the homeowner happening. may have to bear the loss if their own January 1990 LOSS CONTROL = =_ I Q VRT�RL� Leagueof Minnesota Cities Spring 1990 A publication of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust No. S More on sewer back -ups by Peter Tritz, LMCIT Administrator The January, 1990 Loss Control reimbursements from its own funds. ligent, but the city would pay if negl :)uarterly contained an article discuss - The LMCIT liability coverage cov- something other than city k-up ing the factors that determine whether ers only the damages for which the Tense had caused the back or not a city is liable for damages city is liable in tort. It does not Thus, it would be to the city' s ' caused by a sewer back -up. The city i s cover payments that the city com- advantage to have been neglig ent. iiable only if the citv's negli mits itself by contract to make to LMCIT might find it difficult to get caused the sewer back-up ut many another party. (LMCIT does cover the information needed to defend a omeow Hers insurance policies don't contractually assumed tort liability, See "Sewer back - ups, " page 27 -over damages caused by sewer back- but that's a different issue. That ups. When the back -up wasn't a result coverage protects the city when the of city negligence, the homeowner city assumes another party's tort might have to cover the damage from liability to a third party—in an l:is own pocket. By shopping around 'indemnification clause in a contract, ith different companies and/or agents, for example.) homeowner may be able to find a 2 It is a potentiall y unlimited financial olicy that will protect against this risk. risk to the city While the city could Some cities have considered adopt - limit the amount it will reimburse ing a policy of paying for all damages each homeowner, ere 's no wav to caused by sewer back -ups, whether limit the number_ of homeowners caused by the city's negligence or not. that could be entitled to reimburse - The city probably has the legal power ment Imagine a n exceptionally to adopt this kind of policy. You'd do it heavy storm that not o v oo s tie by making it part of the contract sewers with tnfiltrated storcnwater, between the city and the sewer user. but also kn ocks out power to sewer That is, you'd specify in the sewer fift stations. It's not hard to imagine ordinance that in return for paying the a couple of hundred homes with specified fee, the property owner ,5 000 or X10 000 of damages_ would receive two things: sewer ser- apiece -. vice and reimbursement for damages 3 The city would have to de velop a resulting from sewer back -ups. The system for evaluating how mu city couldn't legally make the payments owed each property owner The unless the city had contractually city wo uld face the potential for assumed a duty to do so: to make disputes about the actual value of payments that are not owed either the homeowner's damaged prop - contractually or in tort is to make a gift erty. While a reimbursement policy of public funds. might avoid some conflicts with citi- While the city probably has the legal zens, it might create some others. authority to adopt a policy of reimburs- 4 Some homeowners' insur ance poli- Mg property owners for all sewer back- ci, cove ag sewer back -up dame up damages, city officials should care- In those cases, the city would have fully consider the financial implications. to reimburse the homeowner's There are several points to keep in insurer if the insurer paid the claim. Alft mind before 7ommitting the city con- 5. A reimbursement policy would cre- tractuaily to v for sewer bac -u ate a conflict between the city and d amages, LMCIT would pay sewer 1. The city would have to pay these back -up damage if the city was neg- April 1990 Loss Control Quarterly Sewer back -ups, continued negligence claim because much of encourage more insurers to offer that information would have to come homeowners better property insurance from city officials —and it would be rather than the city itself getting into to the city's disadvantage to provide the business of insuring the home - it. To minimize these problems, owner against one particular kind of L11CIT would probably have to put property risk. a substantial deductible on the city's Cities are welcome to distribute cop - liability coverage for sewer back -up ies of the article from the January Loss claims. Control Quarterly to citizens to help 6. If the city is going to pay off anyway inform them about this issue. If you'd even when the employees have been like copies of that article to distribute, doing a good job of maintaining the contact Kristi Haselman, LMCIT, 183 sewers, the employees quite rea- University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN sonably might conclude that it 55101: 612- 227 -5600. doesn't really matter if they do a good job or not. No city official enjoys haying to sav to a citizen, "The city's not responsi- ble for your damages because the sewer back -u wasn't caused b city negligence. Were sorry but you're on - our own. But pa-vin g for all sewer back -up damages regardless of fault isn't necessariiv the best wav for th city to address that problem. It's a substantial financial risk to the city, and chile it might eliminate some co cts with citizens, it could create other problems. A better solution is to try to provide the citizens with the information they need in order to protect themselves. Property owners need to understand 1) that the city is not always legally responsible for damages caused by sewer back -ups: and 2) that protection against these kinds of damages is avail- able from some, but not all, companies selling homeowners' insurance. If more homeowners know that they might need this coverage and ask their insurance agents and companies for it, perhaps more insurance companies will respond to the demand. The risk to the homeowner of damage from a sewer back -up is, after all, a property risk. There seems no convincing reason for homeowners' insurers to exclude this risk or treat it any differently from any of the other risks to the homeowner's property. Some states. in fact. require home- Owners' insurers to include or at least Offer this coverage. Companies that Offer it in Minnesota often charge very little or no additional premium for the coverage. It seems preferable to try to April 1990 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/23/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FROM PONDS ASSOCIATION TWO FOR SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (DISCUSSION ITEM) *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY fiXPP IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: e :LM j;fa ) °yrs' V `j•r L* No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Regarding the attached letter received by Councilmember Paulson, City staff • wishes to advise the Council that: • The writer is correct in describing the procedures which need to be followed if a request for a speed limit change is to be submitted to MNDOT. • A copy of Minnesota Statutes, 169.14 is attached. This is "the law" regarding establishment of speed limits on all streets and highways in Minnesota. • Also attached is a printout from the Brooklyn Center Police Department's records which provides a summary of speed surveys completed on this segment of Unity Avenue during the past 5 years. Note that for all surveys shown, the overall average speed is approximately 27 mph and the overall 85th percentile speed is approximately 31 mph (the 85th percentile is defined as that speed at which 85% of all vehicles drive below that speed and 15% of all vehicles exceed it). • The Administrative Traffic Committee (ATC) has reviewed the matter of traffic safety, including speed limits, with members of the Ponds Association (this is separate from the Ponds Two Association) on several occasions. While we agree that there are problems with individual drivers driving too fast for conditions on Unity Avenue, we do not believe that the 30 mph speed limit is a problem. Last year the ATC suggested the installation of Chevron signs at the beginning of each curve in the road, but the Ponds Association rejected that suggestion. Accordingly, the ATC believes that a periodic, concentrated, speed enforcement program is the most appropriate response to traffic problems on Unity Avenue, and the Police Department has been conducting such a 0 program for several years. • Established MNDOT policy is to recommend that the speed limit to be established for a street should be based on the 85th percentile speed of existing traffic on that street. If that criteria is applied to Unity Avenue, MNDOT may recommend a 30 mph speed limit. • Based on our previous experiences, we believe it is extremely unlikely that MNDOT would approve any speed limit lower than 30 mph on Unity Avenue. However, there's no way to know for sure unless a formal request is submitted. City Council Action Required Discussion........ Note A resolution requesting MNDOT to conduct a traffic investigation, is provided for consideration by the City Council if the Council elects to submit such a request. • Meg Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION ON UNITY AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 69TH AND 73RD AVENUES NORTH WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Brooklyn Center City Council that the existing speed limit on Unity Avenue North between 65th and 73rd Avenues North is greater than reasonable and safe under existing conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 169.14, Subdivision 5, the Commissioner of Transportation is hereby requested to conduct an engineering and traffic investigation and to authorize the erection of appropriate signs designating what speed is reasonable and safe. 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. 7193 Unity Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 April 12, 1990 Mr. Todd Paulson Brooklyn Center City Council Member 3216 Poe Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Mr. Paulson: This letter is in reference to our earlier conversations about safety and speed limit changes for Unity avenue north between 69th and 73rd avenues in Brooklyn Center. The state of Minnesota has a procedure for cities to lower speed limits below the state defined limit of 30 miles per hour. The following steps are required in this procedure (state statute 169.14). 1. A resolution from the city of Brooklyn Center must be passed addressed to the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation requesting a traffic investigation for Unity avenue north between 69th and 73rd avenues. 2. The resolution should be sent with a cover letter addressed to: Joel Katz Metro Traffic Engineer 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 591 -4605 3. The state will then do a review of the street on a good weather day. 4. Mr. Katz will then forward his report to the state D.O.T. office for approval. Once approved it will be returned to the city of Brooklyn Center with state allowed changes to the current speed limit. Questions with the state may be addressed to Daniel Brannon 296 -1026. The Ponds Association Two is committed to making Unity avenue a safer place for all. We appreciate your help in this matter. Sincerely, L ) j David kaiser`` Ponds Association Two Director (H)560 -2155 (W)647 -0143 • 0£ £'0£ 9 9 ZOT 0£6T -0£LT VS 88/60/LO 0£ 9'6Z Z'9Z 1'9Z ZL 0£ZZ -OOTZ 3 88/80/LO 0£ 9'0£ S'SZ 6'9Z 9£ 0£ZO -0£00 3 88/80/LO 0£ L'0£ tl'9Z S'9Z Z8£ 0£6T -009T HS 88 /LO /LO 0£ T£ Z'9Z 6'9Z 6Z 0£ZO -0£00 HS 88 /LO /LO 0£ 9'6Z 9 8 881 0£6T -O£LT M 88/90/LO 0£ 9'6Z Z'9Z £'SZ 9£ OOZO -0£00 M 88/90/LO 0£ SITE 8Z L'LZ £TZ OOST -0091 ns 88/90/LO 0£ £'T£ 8 LZ OTT 008T -009T K 88 /VO /LO 0£ Z'0£ 9 £'9Z V9T 0£LT -0£9T nS 88 /£0 /LO 0£ T£ 9 9'9Z LZT 0£LT -0£9T HS 88/0£/90 0£ 6'T£ 9'8Z £'8Z 9TZ O£8T -0£9T M 88/6Z/90 0£ 6'Z£ T'LZ 9'LZ 99T 008T -009T n-L 88/8Z/90 0£ 6'8Z Z'9Z 8'9Z 8L OOZO -0£00 vs 88/9Z/90 0£ 8 9 Z'9Z T6 St£0 - 9tp00 3 88/9Z/90 0£ 6'0£ T'LZ T'LZ LST 0081 -0091 ns 88 /TZ /90 0£ Z'T£ 9'LZ T'LZ 6tZ 0081 -009T x 88 /OZ /90 0£ £'0£ T'LZ Z'LZ 8TT OOST -009T nS 88/61/90 0£ 9'T£ LZ LZ TTZ 0£8T -0£9T HS 88/9T/90 0£ 6Z 9'9Z 9'9Z 60T 9tZZ -OOTZ M 88/ST/90 0£ SITE T'8Z 8'LZ £tlZ 9T8T -919T ns 88/tT/90 0£ 9'1£ 9'LZ £'LZ ZOZ 0081 -009T K 88 /£T /90 0£ 9'T£ £'9Z L'9Z 99T 0081 -0091 VS 88/TT/90 0£ £'T£ 8 LZ L6T 0£8T -0£9T HS 88/60/90 0£ Z£ il'LZ 9'LZ VEZ 0£8T -0£9T M 88/80/90 0£ 9'Z£ 9'LZ 9'LZ 9£Z OOST -009T ns 88/LO/90 0£ SITE 9'LZ 9'LZ 7 V0£ 006T -9T9T x 88/90/90 0£ Z'T£ 9 8'9Z L9T OOST -0091 VS 88 /t0 /90 0£ 9'Z£ T'LZ 9'LZ 6TZ 0081 -009T 3 88/£0/90 0£ 8 8'9Z L'9Z 691 9T80 -9T90 3 88/£0/90 0£ £'T£ Z'LZ T'LZ £ZZ 9T8T -009T HZ 88/ZO/90 0£ 9 1 ££ 9 9 £8T 008T -009T M 88/TO/90 0£ 8 8'9Z 9'9Z TtT 0080 -9090 M 88/TO/90 0£ TICE 6Z 8'8Z ££Z OOLT -009T ns 98/£0/90 0£ TICE 8Z Z'8Z 9LT DOLT -OOST M 98 /to /90 0£ LZ L'£Z T'tlZ 8L OZtT -OZ£T 3 98 /tT /ZO 0£ Z'T£ £'9Z 9 LL 9T9T -9TtT 3 98 /LT /TO 0£ 9'T£ L'9Z T'LZ 9t OVTT -OtOT ns 98 /LO /TO 0£ 9Z 9'tlZ £'vZ Lt 9TtT -9T£T K 9S /9Z /TT 0£ fil'Z£ 9'LZ 9'LZ L9 99£T -99ZT M S8 /£T /TT 0£ ----------------------------------------------------------- 9'0£ 9'9Z 9 £S OVTT -OVOT M 98 /TO /TT 'ISd % HZS8 Gaw OAV HSA axil alvci (23I0 7ASINn 01 H169) SAV 2=Nn NOIZFI00'I S2MUIIS 'dVCVU 0 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC REGU"TION § 169.14 Altimus, 1976. ;206 Winn, 46Z M - - W - reckless driving and his conviction and pun - 851. ishment in one municipality barred subse- Where defendant was pursued by police quent prosecution in another municipality. within 5 minutes after tala$q automobile. Star v. Boucher. 1970. 286 Minn 473. 176 his conduct in driving recklessly to avoid N•WZd 624. police apprehension while using a vehicle Where defendant was charged with care - without authormauou con3unated a single less driving and driving while under influ- behavioral indent, and thus conviction for ence of akohoi, during continuous and unin- unauthorized use of the motor vehieie terrnpttd driving from one place to another. barred subsequent proseentioa for rer3tkss his conduct came within protection of driving. Stacie v. �q ID 1972.'95 M in- a2Q . 609 which bars multiple prosecutions 203 Y.W2d 114 for alleged offenses arising out of same Conduct of defendant who drove through acts and waived his right to statutory pro- four municipalities at high and extensive teetion against multiple prosecutions but rates of speed heedless of traffic control mos against multiple panlshmentfor two devices in eantmuons mtemuve effort to Separ offenses arising out of same con - evade pursuing police was one continuous duet State v. Gladden. 1966, 274 Minn. indivisible course of action eonsamuag 533. 144 Y.W2d 9. 169.131. Repealed bT Laws 1976, C. 103, § 1. efE June 1, 1976 Historical dote This section which prohiXted juveniles tween 1200 midnight and 5.-00 Lai. was under 17 from driving motor vehicles be- derived from Laws 195 e 542, § L 169.132 Repealed by Laws 1977. C. 347, § 29 H stairiol Note pena Thu section for vioiatioas of ormer �� the wan de- Laws 1969. C. art. L § I& rived froth Laws 1957, c, 542. § 2 169.14. Speed resuictions Subdivision 1. Basic rule: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be neces- sary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty Of all persons to use due care. Subd. L Speed Limits. Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawfui; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maamum limit and any s py i excess thereof shall be unlawful• (1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district; (2) 65 miles per hour in other locations during the daytime; ( 55 Arles per hoar is such other locations during the nighttime; (4) 10 miles per hour in alleys. '_""! -- 143 0 § 169.14 HIGHWAYS: ROADS "Daytime" means from a half hour before sunrise to a half hour after sunset, except at any time when due to weather or other conditions there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles at a distance of 500 feet "Nighttime" means at any other hour or at any time when due to weather or other conditions there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles at a distance of 500 feet Subd_ 3. Reduced speed required. The driver of any vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade cross- ing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. Subd. 4. Establishment of zones by commissioner. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any speed set forth in this section is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist on any trunk highway or upon any part thereof, the commissioner may erect appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful, except that any speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. On determining upon that basis that a part of the trunk highway system outside a municipality should be a zone of maximum speed limit, the commissioner may establish that part as such a zone by erecting appropriate signs showing the beginning and end of the zone, designating a reasonable and safe speed therefor, which may be different than the speed set forth in this section, and that it is a zone Of maximum speed limit The speed so designated by the commissioner -within any such zone shall be a maximum speed limit, and speed in excess of such limit shall be unlawful. The commissioner may in the same manner from time to time alter the boundary of such a zone and the speed Iimit therein or eliminate such zone. Subd. 5. Zoning within local areas. When local authorities believe that the existing speed limit upon any street or highway, or part thereof, within their respective jurisdictions and not a part of the trunk highway system is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under existing conditions, they may request the commissioner to authorize, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, the erection of appro- priate signs designating what speed is reasonable and safe, and the commissioner may authorize the erection of appropriate signs designat- ing a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of these speed limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reason- 144 HIGHWAY TILAFFIC REGULATION § 169.14 able or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that any speed Iimit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. alteration of speed limits on streets and highways shall be made only upon authority of the commissioner except as provided in subdivision 5a- Subd. aa. Speed zoning in school zones. Local authorities may establish a school speed limit within a school zone of a public or nonpublic school upon the basis of an. engineering and traffic investiga- tion as prescribed by the commissioner of transportation. The establish - ment of a school speed limit on any trunk highway shall be with the consent of the commissioner of transportation" Such school speed limits shall be in effect when children are present, going to or leaving school during opening or closing hours or during school recess periods. The school speed limit shall not be tower than 15 miles per hour and shall not be more than 20 miles per hour below the established speed limit on an affected street or highway if the established speed limit is 40 miles per hour o r grea ter. The school speed limit shall be effective upon the erection of appropri- ate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced speed zone. Any speed in excess of such posted school speed limit is unlawfuL All such signs shall be erected by the local authorities on those streets and highways under their respective jurisdic- tions and by the commissioner of transportation on trunk highways. For the purpose of this subdivision, "school zone" means that section of a street or highway which abuts the grounds of a school where children have access to the street or highway from the school property or where an established school crossing is located provided the school advance sign Prescrib by the manual on uniform traffic control devices adopted by the commissioner of transportation pursuant to section 169.06 is in place. All signs erected by local authorities to designate speed limits in school zones shall conform to the manual on uniform control devices. Subd. 5b. Segments in urban districts. When any segment of at least aquarter -mde in distance of any city street, municipal state aid street or town road on which a speed limit in excess of 30 miles per hour has been established pursuant to an engineering and traffic investigation by the commissioner meets the definition of "urban district" as defined in section 169.01 subdivision 59 the governing . bdtv�s g ruing body of the ci ty or town may by resolution declare the segment to be an urban district and may establish on the segment the speed limit for urban districts prescribed in subdivision 2. The speed limit so established shall be effective upon the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the segment on which the speed limit is established, and any speed in excess of such posted limits shall be unlawful. A copy 145 § 169.14 HIGHWAYS: ROADS of the resolution shall be transmitted to the commissioner at least 10 days prior to the erection of the signs. Subd. 5c. Speed zoning in alleyways. Local authorities may regu- late speed limits for alleyways as defined in section 169.01 based on their own engineering and traffic investigations. Alleyway speed limits estab- lished at other than 10 miles per hour shall be effective when proper signs are posted. Subd. 6. Repealed by Laws 1971, Ex-Sess., c. 27, § 49, eff. Aug. 4, 1971. Subd. 7. Burden of proof. The provisions of this chapter declaring speed limitation shall not be construed to relieve the plaintiff in any civil action from the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defend- ant as the proximate cause of an accident. Subd. 8. Minimum speeds. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that a speed at least as great as, or in excess of, a specified and determined minimum is necessary to the reasonable and safe use of any trunk highway or portion thereof, the commissioner may erect appropriate signs specifying the minimum speed on such highway or portion thereof. The minimum speed shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds less than the posted minimum speeds shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful. Subd. 9. Standards of evidence. In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle as indicated on the speedometer thereof shall be admissible on a showing that a vehicle is regularly used in traffic law enforcement and that the speedometer thereon is regularly and routinely tested for accuracy and a record of the results of said tests kept on file by the agency having control of said vehicle. Evidence as to the speed indicated on said speedometer shall be prima facie evidence that the said vehicle was, at the time said reading was observed, traveling at the rate of speed so indicated; subject to correction by the amount of error, if any, shown to exist by the test made closest in time to the time of said reading: Records of speedometer tests kept in the regular course of operations of any law enforcement agency shall be admissible without further foundation, as to the results of said tests. Such records shall be available to the defendant upon demand. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude or interfere with the cross examination or impeach- ment of evidence of rate of speed as indicated by speedometer readings, pursuant to the rules of evidence. Subd. 10. Radar; speedalyzer devices; standards of evidence. In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed as indicated on radar or other speedalyzer devices is admissible in evidence, subject to the following conditions: 146 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/23/90 Agenda Item Number I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REFORESTATION PROGRAM (Discussion Item) **************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes .In the attached report Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector reviews the City's current programs for removal of diseased trees and for reforestation, and S identifies some alternatives for discussion. Council Action Required Review . . . . . . Discuss . . . . . Comment, and request additional information, if needed . . . . . Provide direction to staff . . . . . April 18, 1990 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spect SUBJ: Reforestation Alternatives SUMMARY Brooklyn Center has over the past several years lost to disease and drought hundreds of park and boulevard trees and trees on private property. The 1990 budget includes funding to replace about 120 boulevard trees and 50 trees in parks and along trails. The Minnesota DNR is developing a program aimed at providing cost sharing and technical assistance for municipalities establishing comprehensive forestry programs. This program will include, for 1991, cost - sharing provisions for acquiring and planting trees. A comprehensive forestry program in Brooklyn Center would include: a tree inventory; tree disease control; a tree trimming program; landscape planning assistance; and reforestation efforts. it would ideally be coordinated by a person with a forestry background. This memorandum is intended to provide background information on Brooklyn Center's forestry activities, which have primarily been aimed at disease control, and to suggest possible future directions. Some options can be pursued in 1990, with potential cost sharing with the state. Others can be considered in the 1991 budget. DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM In 1989, the City marked 592 diseased or dead trees for removal, primarily elms and oaks. Minnesota Department of Agriculture experts believe there may be a six to ten percent increase in tree losses in 1990. This increase is expected to be due to a combination of factors, but primarily because of the lasting effect of the drought of 1988 and subsequent moderate levels of precipitation. Dutch elm disease, oak wilt, and lack of adequate moisture have combined over the past fifteen years to substantially reduce our "urban forest." A 1984 report to the Council estimated that the City at one time boasted of perhaps 3,600 boulevard trees; at that time it was estimated that about 1,200 -1,600 remained. Since 1983, the City has had about 850 boulevard trees removed through the Diseased Tree program. It is not known how many boulevard trees were removed by property owners independent of the program. About 1,850 trees on private property have been removed since 1983 through the diseased tree program; again, it's not known how many were removed independent of the program. An essential part of our urban forest are the trees in City parks and along bicycle and pedestrian trails. About 290 trees were removed through the diseased tree program in these areas since 1983. Attachment 1 summarizes trees removed yearly since 1974. STATE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM During the height of the Dutch Elm disease crisis, the state Department of Agriculture funded a program that reimbursed municipalities for the cost of removing diseased trees. This program intended to thwart the spread of the disease by encouraging the timely removal of infected trees. Cities could receive reimbursement for up to 45 percent of their share of the costs of. tree inspection; disease control by trimming, chemical application, or other means; and removal and disposal of dead or diseased wood. This program was eliminated in 1982 as a result of the state's fiscal austerity measures. Brooklyn Center participated in this grant program from 1977 -82; the shade tree disease control program was administered by the park department. Much of the funding which was received was reimbursement for the City's share of the cost of removing boulevard trees. The table below summarizes the grants which were received and the actual city expenditures for tree removal. For the period of state grant participation, these costs were: for boulevard trees, one -half of the non - reimbursed 55 percent; and for park trees the entire non - reimbursed 55 percent. After the grant program was eliminated, these costs were one -half the costs of boulevard tree removal and the entire cost of removing park trees. Note that in 1983, administration of this program was transferred to the Public Works Department. TABLE 1 Shade Tree Disease Control Program State Grants Received, and Actual Expenditures (Excluding Labor Costs) YEAR STATE GRANTS TREE REMOVAL RECEIVED PROGRAM ACTUAL EXPENDITURES 1989 $0 $32 1988 0 24 1987 0 20,222 1986 0 3,773 1985 0 17,868 1984 0 13,293 1983 0 5,387 1982 0 4,118 1981 __. 3 , 785 5,649 1980 14 8,725 1979 12 9,104 1978 10,956 3,885 1977 17 N/A 1976 0 N/A 3 HISTORY OF THE CITY'S REFORESTATION PROGRAM The 1990 budget includes $2,500 to purchase 50 trees for parks and trails; $2,750 to replace 50 boulevard trees lost to accidents or vandalism; and $6,000 to begin a reforestation program to replace 120 boulevard trees lost to disease. About 70 of those have already been acquired, and locations have been identified. The Council has over the past 14 years approved capital outlay requests to replace park and trail and boulevard trees. The table below summarizes those outlays. TABLE 2 Expenditures for Tree Replacement: 1976 -1990 Location /Type of Source # Trees Year Department Replacement Of Funds Amount Replaced - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 1990 Parks Park /trail Budget $2,500 50 Streets Boulevard: Accident /vandal Budget 2,750 50 Streets Boulevard: disease Budget 6,000 120 1989 Streets Boulevard: Accident /vandal Budget 3,000 60 1988 Parks Park /trail Special approp 5,000 100 Streets Boulevard: Accident /vandal Budget 1,700 35 1987 Streets Boulevard: Accident /vandal Budget 1,500 30 1986 Parks Park /trail Budget 1,500 30 1982 Parks Park /trail Budget 8,000 ? 1981 Parks Boulevard* Budget 5,000 75 1980 Parks Boulevard* Revenue share 5,000 75 1978 Parks Boulevard* Revenue share 4,000 90 1977 Parks Boulevard* Revenue share 4,000 90 1976 Parks Boulevard* Revenue share 4,000 90 ---------------- 895 *A few of these trees were planted in parks. 4 During the late 1970's, the City utilized federal revenue sharing funds to begin to replace boulevard trees lost to Dutch elm disease. These trees were planted on a "first come first served" basis. Some property owners who were eligible for a replacement tree preferred a tree of a different variety than that the City was planting, and so replaced the boulevard tree at their own expense. This program was implemented in conjunction with the Minnesota Shade Tree Disease Control program described above. TREES PLANTED IN CONJUCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Tree and shrub planting has also been accomplished through street, park, and trail construction projects. The table below summarizes total trees planted. This table does not include trees that were cleared from a construction site and transplanted elsewhere. TABLE 3 Trees Planted as a Result of Construction Projects: 1980 -1990 Project Number Project Location # Trees ------- - - - - -- -------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - -- 1988 -18* West River Road Boulevard 241 1989 -26* Freeway /65th /66th Boulevard 26 1989 -27* Humboldt Avenue Boulevard 24 1989 -14 Landscaping France & Logan Boulevard 3 1988 -21 Phase 2A, Golf Course Park 49 1988 -26 Phase 213, Golf Course Park 36 1988 -19 N. Lilac Trail Trail 28 1986 -21 EB Farm Streetscape Boulevard 228 1984 -15 Shingle Creek Trailway Trail 141 1984 -12 Civic Center Landscaping Park 16 1984 -10 Plaza /Central Park Impr. Park 146 1982 -24 Central Park Improvements Park 182 1980 -20 Arboretum Improvements Park 38 *Planned TOTAL 1,158 SUMMARY OF TREE REMOVALS AND TREE PLANTINGS Following is a summary of the number of trees removed and the number of trees planted under various programs during the period from 1976 -1989. TABLE 4 Summary of Tree Removals and Tree Plantings TREES REMOVED (excl stumps) TREES PLANTED* NET YEAR GAIN BOULE- PRIVATE PARKS TOTAL REFORES- CONSTR- (LOSS) VARD TATION PROJECTS PROGRAM 1989 139 266 176 581 60 3 (518) 1988 131 256 92 479 135 113 (231) 1987 92 167 13 272 30 N/A (242) 1986 103 278 8 389 30 228 (131) 1985 162 412 N/A 574 N/A N/A (574) 1984 223 294 N/A 517 N/A 303 (214) 1983 104 184 N/A 288 N/A N/A (288) 1982 N/A N/A N/A 389 N/A 182 (207) 1981 N/A N/A N/A 583 75 N/A (508) 1980 N/A N/A N/A 478 75 38 (365) TOTAL (3264) * This does not include trees planted by homeowners on their private property. From this summary it is obvious that there has been a substantial net loss in Brooklyn Center's urban forest. Homeowners have planted additional trees on their private property, and the City has had some success with reforestation. However, given the magnitude of the tree loss, these efforts have not been sufficient. PROPOSED FORESTRY PROGRAM A forestry program would ideally have four elements, and would be administered by a person . with knowledge of forestry (herinafter called a "forester" for purposes of this report). This could be a full -time city position with other assigned duties, or the position could be shared with another suburb, as Robbinsdale shares its city forester with Golden Valley. An initial activity would be the development of a tree inventory. This activity would be eligible for cost sharing with the state DNR under a currently - proposed grant program. This inventory 6 could be undertaken by city staff with assistance from the Twin Cities Tree Trust or from student interns, or it could be conducted by an outside consultant. This inventory would be invaluable in establishing and maintaining a comprehensive forestry program. The four elements of a forestry program would be: 1) Disease control; 2) Trimming; 3) Landscape planning; and 4) Reforestation. 1. DISEASE CONTROL Disease control is currently provided in two ways. The City annually contracts with a tree removal service to remove trees marked under the Diseased Tree program. The City's tree inspector, who is a member of the street maintenance division, spends about one -third of his time performing tree disease inspections and supervising the tree removal contractor. The rest of his time is needed for other street maintenance activities. He and other street and parks employees provide other disease control services, such as trimming park and boulevard trees, as time is available. A forester could dedicate more time than the tree inspector has available to disease control activities, including: more comprehensive inspections; expansion of the diseased tree program to include other infectious diseases; and educational activities for city residents. 2. TRIMMING Boulevard trees are currently trimmed by street department staff during the winter months. Trees are trimmed only on the street side, and only where overhanging or protruding branches might damage maintenance vehicles. The property side of the tree is the responsibility of the property owner. No attempt is made to trim trees for aesthetic or other reasons. A forester could develop a policy and program for tree trimming along streets and trails and in parks. Boulevard trees would be trimmed on all sides under this program, and trimming to promote health and growth as well as safety and aesthetics would be objectives. 3. LANDSCAPE PLANNING The third element, landscape planning, would be a minor but important element of a forester's responsibilities. The forester would develop plans for planting and maintaining trees, shrubs, and other landscape elements in city parks, along trails, and on the boulevards, and would provide assistance in the development of streetscapes for street construction projects, such as the reconstruction of West River Road and of 69th Avenue North. Landscape planning to promote arboreal diversity is essential in preventing the spread of disease and in providing resistance to newly established diseases. The City currently relies on a Landscape Architect consultant to provide this type of planning for construction or capital improvement projects. 4. REFORESTATION The final component to a comprehensive forestry program is reforestation. As the tables above indicate, the City has lost many hundreds of trees in the past decades to disease, drought, and old age. Reforestation efforts have been sporadic and relatively minor, and have necessarily focused only on trees on public lands. Several potential reforestation programs could be pursued. First, the City could in a variety of ways increase its tree planting program on public lands. Second, residents could be assisted in replacing trees on their property through a City- assisted program. Third, staff could explore the possibility of private sector participation. Fourth, the City could, in partnership with the several school districts, develop programs such as Minneapolis' "Adopt a Tree" and Arbor Day and Earth Day activities. The 1989 legislature provided a total of $110,000 for funding of a reforestation grant program; $80,000 will be used to share in the cost of purchasing trees, and $30,000 for grants to assist communities in developing comprehensive forestry management programs. If DNR staff - proposed funding criteria are approved, the cost sharing grants would be available in 1991 to assist in tree replacement on public lands. To receive this funding, it is likely that the City would have to meet certain requirements, such as preparing a reforestation plan or establishing a tree inventory system. It's also possible that the City may have to have someone on staff charged with coordinative responsibilities. The Council may wish to provide for additional reforestation in the 1991 budget, either in conjunction with or separate from the grant program. Staff could begin development of a program that would provide City assistance to residents in replacing trees on private property. A relatively simple program would have the city purchase trees in bulk at a volume discount, and then sell them to residents at cost. The residents would be responsible for planting the trees, but the forester and other staff would be available to provide advice and technical assistance. Robbinsdale conducted such a program several years ago, and Golden Valley has recently been working on implementing one. Finally, the American Forestry Association's Global ReLeaf program has successfully enlisted the assistance of the private sector in providing for reforestation. For example, a large donation from E&J Gallo Winery recently allowed a number of organizations across the country to undertake projects. In the Metro area, the Twin Cities Tree Trust planted 100 large trees in Sochecki Park. The AFA has developed resource materials for private sector participation, and staff could investigate the feasibility of this effort in Brooklyn Center. 8 SUMMARY Three options discussed here could be pursued immediately, while others can be undertaken in 1991. • The DNR expects its cost sharing criteria to be finalized with the next month to six weeks. City staff could pursue the possibility of obtaining matching funds in 1991 for boulevard and park/trail tree replacement. • Staff could explore the options for beginning a tree inventory system, including state cost sharing availability. • Staff could begin to prepare a comprehensive forestry plan for Brooklyn Center. Its first step would be establishing a policy determining where boulevard replacement trees would be located, what types would be planted where, etc. The Council may wish to defer consideration of a forester until the 1991 budget discussions. If that is the case, it is not likely that the city could successfully undertake a city- assisted private tree replacement program this year, without that person's expertise. As a final note, DNR staff are optimistic that federal funding for urban reforestation will be made available to states for grants to municipalities in the next few years. It may be wise for the city to begin comprehensive reforestation planning now, to be ready to make immediate use of such funding if it should become available. ATTACHMENT 1 City of Brooklyn Center Diseased Tree Remova m l Program Summary 1974 1975 1976 11977 1 11979 11980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 11989 Elms Marked and Removed 34 47 267 614 712 487 478 583 389 288 517 574 389 272 401 490 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 38 47 267 617 712 487 478 583 389 288 517 574 389 272 479 581 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 1 47 267 617 882 512 494 59 i 418 317 1 537 1 607 401 2�0 4E7 512 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 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/23/90 Agenda Item Number _O _q _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION � V ITEM DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP DI CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: , . I No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • The Administrative Traffic Committee recently received a request from a property owner on Logan Avenue North for installation of a street light in the alley between Logan and Morgan Avenues, 53rd to 54th Avenues. The City's current street light policy does not include provision for installation of City- funded lights in alleys. The Committee recommends that the current street light policy be amended to allow installation of alley lights on the same basis as street lights. That is, a petition for installation of the light must be signed by a majority of the property owners abutting the alley, and must include the approval of the property owners which will be adjacent to the light. One light per alley would be installed, except where the length of the alley exceeds 700 feet. There are 18 alleys in Brooklyn Center, one of which is a double - length alley. The annual operations and maintenance cost of one 100 watt overhead high pressure sodium light is, at 1990 rates, about $125. The maximum additional cost to the City of the proposed policy change would be about $2,400. This could be accommodated within the current operating budget, and would not require a budget amendment. Council Action Required A resolution detailing the City's Street Lighting Policy, with the proposed additions underlined and deletions bracketed, is attached for consideration. J �J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION INTO. RESOLUTION AMENDING STREET AND ALLEY LIGHTING POLICY WHEREAS, the City's Administrative Traffic Committee has recommended amending the City's street lighting policy to allow for installation of street lights in City alleys; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following shall constitute the policy for installation of street and alley lights in the City of Brooklyn Center: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STREET AND ALLEY LIGHTING POLICY I. A street light shall be installed at every intersection open for traffic within the City. On any streets with a curb -to -curb width in excess of 52 feet, and where there is normally a significant amount of pedestrian traffic, two street lights may be installed at each intersection. 2. Mid -block street or alley lights may be installed in any block in which the centerline to centerline distance between cross streets is greater than 700 feet, upon receipt of a petition signed by a majority of the residents on the block, including the signatures of the residents adjacent to the specific location where such mid block light is requested. In such instances, additional street or alley lights shall be installed so that the distance between street lights does not exceed 700 feet. 3. Additional street or alley lights will be considered for individual approval upon receipt of a petition from the property owners in the affected area, or upon recommendation from the Chief of Police or from the Director of Public Works when such petition or recommendation demonstrates a specific warrant affecting traffic or Public safety. 4. The type of [street] lights installed under the provisions of the above three paragraphs shall be as follows: a. If the electrical distribution system within the area is overhead, the [street] light shall consist of a steel mast arm and luminaire mounted on a conventional wood pole with overhead electrical service. b. If the electrical distribution system within the area is underground, the [street] light shall consist of a steel mast arm and luminaire mounted on a conventional wood pole with underground electrical service. RESOLUTION NO. c. The size of luminaires to be installed shall be as follows: High Pressure Sodium - On collector and arterial streets 250 watt - On local streets, at marked crosswalks 150 watt - On local streets, where no marked 100 watt crosswalks exist, and in alleys 5. All street and alley lighting requests and installations should be coordinated through the Director of Public Works. 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. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 23, 1990: CIGARETTE - OVER THE COUNTER Brooklyn Center Service 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. 1 Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk Pak FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Church of the Nazarene 501 - 73rd Ave. N. St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. --T- �1 Taco Bell 5532 Brooklyn Blvd. / + 4 j, - - Ua) - ` r"✓ Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center American Legion Evergreen Park Brooklyn Center Fire Department Central Park Brooklyn Center Lions E. C. High School Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air Corp, Inc. 13005 16th Ave. N. Flare Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 664 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Milts Gas Heating Service, Inc. 2500 Longview Drive New Mech Companies, Inc. 1633 Eustis Street Preferred Mechanical Services, Inc. 712 W. 77 1/2 St. Pride Mechanical, Inc. 3025 NE Randolph St. 0 R & S Heating and Air Cond. 21357 Hemlock Ave. United Heating and A/C 7909 30th Ave. N. Yale, Inc. 9649 Girard Ave. S. Building Official MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP / Brookdale Ford, Inc. 2500 Co. Road 10 City Clerk NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Hub Vending 6123 Aldrich Ave. N. Johnson Controls 1801 67th Ave. N. Leeann Chin Commissary 6800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. �. Y1LL YL Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Patti Zoerb 5900 Camden Ave. N. Linda Fluguear 5242 Lakeside Place Renewal: Brookwood Estates 6201 N. Lilac Drive Brookwood Manor 6125 N. Lilac Drive Danny J. Peterson 5607 Colfax Ave. N. James & Yvonne Lyons 5303 Emerson Ave. N. Robert & Marilyn Cashman 5622 Emerson Ave. N. United Homes Corp. 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #228 Gary & Carol Meinke 3601 47th Ave. N. n John & Patricia DeVries 2911 68th Lane N. ((•11lZtL Director of Plannin g,C11 and Inspection SIGN HANGER n /� Suburban Lighting, Inc. 6077 Lake Elmo Ave. N. Building Official 4k SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Main Street Video 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian SWIMMING POOL Brookwood Estates 6201 N. Lilac Driven,, Earle Brown Farm Apartments 1701, 07 69th Ave. N. Sanitarian aik- TAXICAB Suburban Taxi Corporation 9614 Humboldt Ave. S. Yellow Taxi Service Corp. 3555 5th Ave. S. CiAef of Police j � 1 GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk